Real World Event Discussions
'Kyle did nothing wrong'? or the crimes of the Kenosha Shooter
POSTED BY: JAYNEZTOWN
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 14:44
VIEWED: 16337
PAGE 10 of 26
Sunday, November 14, 2021 6:19 AM
The Young Turks comes out and issues a correction after one and a half years of falsely slamming Kyle with lies.
The "journalists" there with their journalist degrees couldn't be bothered to watch any of the videos of the incident until it went to trial. Either that, or they fucking lied about everything knowing full well they were lying up until they couldn't lie about it anymore.
Even TYT disagrees with you now, Second. You racist little bitch.
Ana Kasparian and Fat Fuck are too stupid to have jobs.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, November 14, 2021 10:09 AM
Quote:As always, introduction of facts and truth ruins the Libtard narrative.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:It doesn't matterwhat he was there "for". What matters, at least as far as I understand, are the circumstances immediately before Rittenhouse fired his weapon.
SIGNYM:
Like I said, it was a melee, with guns.
It's all a clusterfuck. I would love to see the evidence for myself.
SECONDRATE: This case is easy to understand, unless you don't want to understand that guns are NOT for protection, but for killing. An AR-15 is NOT a Star Wars lightsaber, which can deflect bullets. The AR-15 is only for killing people, except some people who are incompetent it is only for making noises. How many people were shot? 3. How many shooters? 1. Is the jury going to hold the shooter responsible? Is the jury going to believe that Rittenhouse was there to protect himself?
It's one thing to shoot gooks running away from a helicopter ... you can take time to pick your targets and aim.
It's another to shoot when a mob is chasing you and one is pointing a weapon at you.
I know there are various legal limits on self defense in various states. Not sure of the applicable law in this state, but IMHO some of the limits that I've seen require far more cool-headedness than I would expect of the average civilian.
When faced with - literally- an enraged mob (a mob which, apparently, mistakenly believes that you just shot somebody) there is no hope of self defense unless you have a gun.
If Rittenhouse REALLY wanted to kill libtards, he would have positioned himself on a tall building, and started picking people off, like any sensible mass shooter. Yanno, like you shooting from a helicopter.
So instead of grinding on and on with your obsession about Rittenhouse's supposed motives ... and you have a consistent history of being wrong with your "mind reading" ... you should look at his actions.
The evidence. There's a lot of it. What does it say?
I don't know. I've only seen bits and pieces. You've prolly seen even less than I have.
Kyle spent that day working as Lifeguard for the City of Kenosha. Saving lives of innocent people really irks Libtards. And I recall Libtards avoided working with us Lifeguards.
Following that, and feeling a part of the Kenosha community, he went to the high school to clean off graffiti vandalism from the out of town invading rioters. Libtards wouldn't get caught dead cleaning up their own work.
Then, still feeling part of the Kenosha community, he responded to the call for help from the Car Dealership Owner to protect his property from out of town invading looters, arsonists and rioters. Libtards hate that he was trying to defeat them, after they bussed in from NY and Portland/Seattle.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/kyle-rittenhouse-working-life
guard-kenosha-day-shooting-went-clean-vandalism-school-work/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, November 14, 2021 11:32 AM
Quote:Some have posted that Kyle is obviously guilty of some of the 6 charges filed against him.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm not sure if you are serious or not.
Plenty of lies posted elsewhere on this board on this topic.
There are no Assault Weapons in WI, not even the ugly mugs of Libtard women.
Until 2017, people needed to be 12 years old to carry a shotgun or rifle in WI, but then Gov Walker signed the Law eliminating the minimum age requirement. Handguns possession is a bit more murky. Cannon are legal in MI, but I don't think so in WI.
The rifle Kyle had was purchased in WI, owned by a WI resident, never left the State on the day of the attacks upon Kyle, and was never subject to IL Laws.
Many IL residents venture to WI to hunt and partake in celebration of 2nd Amendment Rights (which are much curtailed in IL). There is a popular bumper sticker which says "WISCONSIN: Illinois' Largest State Park"
Also, Trump had to call Gov Skeletor Evers and plead him to call out the National Guard (which Evers controls, as Gov) - because Evers didn't want to restore any civilized environment in WI (rioting in both Kenosha and WI, and this weekend in Green Bay)
Which charge(s)?
Libtard out-of-Staters and citislickers have blathered on about the weapons charge, carrying a dangerous weapon while under 18 years of age. They reference State Law which prohibits carrying short barrel shotgun or short barrel rifle.
Kids older than 12 can carry shotguns and rifles, and 13 year olds don't need a hunting license to do so.
Judge Schroeder stated that this law was complicated and he needed to review it.
So what charge did Kyle obviously violate?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, November 14, 2021 11:52 AM
Quote:The guy seems completely retarded.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The Young Turks comes out and issues a correction after one and a half years of falsely slamming Kyle with lies.
The "journalists" there with their journalist degrees couldn't be bothered to watch any of the videos of the incident until it went to trial. Either that, or they fucking lied about everything knowing full well they were lying up until they couldn't lie about it anymore.
Even TYT disagrees with you now, Second. You racist little bitch.
Ana Kasparian and Fat Fuck are too stupid to have jobs.
Where is he from? NYC? Turkey?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, November 15, 2021 9:08 PM
Quote:
Judge Drops Rittenhouse Gun Charge, Finds He Legally Carried AR-15 In Kenosha
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/judge-drops-rittenhouse-gun-charge-f
inds-he-legally-carried-ar-15-kenosha
Or, for those who bother to follow the embedded link...
Quote:
Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?
Johnathan Turley
In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law and could not state with certainty what it means in this case. The statement could effectively knock out the misdemeanor gun possession count — the one count that could still be in play for the jury after the prosecution’s case on the more serious offense appeared to collapse in court. A close examination of that provision reveals ample reason to question not just its meaning but its application to this case.
The unlawful possession of the gun has been a prominent fact cited not only by the prosecutors but the press.
At trial, however, prosecutor Thomas Binger at points seemed to be learning the governing law from Rittenhouse. For example, he pressed Rittenhouse on why he did not just purchase a handgun rather than an AR-15. Rittenhouse replied he could not possess a hand gun at his age. Binger then asked in apparent disbelief that the law allowed him to have an AR-15 but not a handgun and Rittenhouse said yes. Binger then moved on after seemingly drawing out a point for the defense.
The exchange was all the more baffling because it drew attention to the fact that one of Binger’s alleged “victims” was an adult named Gaige Grosskreutz who also decided to bring a handgun to the protests and pointed his .40 caliber Glock at the head of Rittenhouse when he was shot in the arm.
However, the most damaging moment came outside of the presence of the jury when the judge drilled down on the law. He told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.” He added that he failed to understand how an “ordinary citizen” could understand what is illegal.
It is hard to understand how the count could be given to the jury without a clear understanding of what it means. It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute. Criminal laws are supposed to be interpreted narrowly. It is called the “rule of lenity” and has been around in the English system for centuries. For example, in 1547, the court was faced with a law making it a felony to steal “Horses, Geldings or Mares.” Given the use of plural nouns, the court ruled that it did not apply to stealing just one horse.
The problem with the Wisconsin statute is not a problem of pluralization but definition. It is not clear that the statute actually bars possession by Rittenhouse. Indeed, it may come down to the length of Rittenhouse’s weapon and the prosecutors never bothered to measure it and place it into evidence.
In Wisconsin, minors cannot possess short-barreled rifles under Section 941.28. Putting aside the failure to put evidence into the record to claim such a short length, it does not appear to be the case here. Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson MP-15 with an advertised barrel length of 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches. That is not a short barrel.
Then there is the rest of the statute and ultimately the word “and.” Under Section 948.60(2)(a) (“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”), “[a]ny person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” That makes Rittenhouse guilty, right?
Well, you then have to look at the subsection (c), which states that “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.”
Since there is noNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, November 15, 2021 9:16 PM
Quote:
Prosecutors crash and burn in Kyle Rittenhouse case, but polarized America doesn't see it
Rittenhouse is not on trial for American society's historical racism, and such history does not change the underlying facts of his case.
Jonathan Turley
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse increasingly seems like a legal version of the parable of the blind men and the elephant. By only touching discrete parts of the animal, the men describe vastly different animals. In coverage of this trial, one would think that there were parallel trials occurring in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
One consensus however is emerging: Things are not going well for the prosecution.
But the reason for this developing failure depends greatly on what media you are watching other than the trial itself. It is either the product of systemic errors or systemic racism.
Rittenhouse is facing six charges that range from first-degree homicide to a misdemeanor of being a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon. At this stage, the prosecution may celebrate even a misdemeanor conviction.
Prosecution's bumpy start, and finish
The prosecution stumbled out of the gate in the trial. Gaige Grosskreutz was the third person to be shot by Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz admitted under cross-examination that Rittenhouse did not shoot him when he had his hands up after their confrontation. He admitted that it was only after he pointed his handgun at Rittenhouse and moved toward him that Rittenhouse fired.
Likewise, a prosecution witness, Ryan Balch, testified that one of the other people shot, Joseph Rosenbaum, said that he intended to kill Kyle Rittenhouse. Other witnesses described Rosenbaum as "belligerent" or "hyperaggressive."
USA TODAY's Carli Pierson:Kyle Rittenhouse deserves an award for his melodramatic performance on the witness stand.
Later, the prosecution called Richard McGinniss, a journalist with The Daily Caller who was reporting from Kenosha that night. He was near Rittenhouse when Joseph Rosenbaum was shot. The prosecutor told McGinniss, “I mean you have no idea what Mr. Rosenbaum was ever thinking at any point of his life. You have never been inside his head, you never met him before.”
McGinnis said, “I never exchanged words with him, if that’s what your question is.”
The prosecutor then pressed McGinnis on how he had no idea what Rosenbaum was thinking because it “is complete guesswork, isn’t it?”
That is when McGinnis delivered a haymaker, noting, “Well he said (expletive) you, and then he reached for the weapon.”
Opinions in your inbox: Get a digest of our takes on current events every day
The prosecution's own medical expert, Dr. Doug Kelly, appeared to confirm that the forensic evidence of soot injuries on Rosenbaum's hand could be consistent with Rosenbaum trying to grab the barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle when the gun was fired.
It got worse from there, including a glaring constitutional violation by the prosecution when Binger began his cross examination of Rittenhouse by commenting on his decision to remain silent.
The judge correctly tore into the prosecutor. Any first-year law student knows that you cannot comment on the silence of a Mirandized defendant after an arrest under the Fifth Amendment – let alone ignore a court order.
Biased media viewers
Even without the unforced errors by the prosecution, this was always a difficult case. Wisconsin has a strong self-defense standard. After a defendant claims to have acted to repel a threat, the burden is on the prosecution to rebut that claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
Instead, the prosecution prompted its own witnesses to create layers of doubt in the case. In doing so, it seems to have reduced the range of possibilities to somewhere between a hung jury and outright acquittal on the major charges.
Kyle Rittenhouse testifies about fatally shooting two people
The problem is that many people may be unaware that the case is collapsing due to such evidentiary or tactical failures. Any hung jury or acquittalNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1:56 AM
What are the facts? That's what I want to know.
Describing Rosenbaum as "belligerent" or "hyperaggressive" is no more helpful - to me - than describing Rittenhouse as a “trigger-happy vigilante". That kind of character assassination ON BOTH SIDES should never be allowed.
Here's what I wonder. If Rosenbaum grabbed the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun and was killed, doesn't that mean the gun was already pointed AT HIM and he was trying to deflect it? For example, if the gun was pointed up in the air, and I was trying to grab it, I would grab it from underneath, which would point the gun even further upward. OTOH if the gun was pointed down at the ground, and I were to grab it, I would grab it from above, and drive it further downward. Only if it was pointed directly at me would I grab it from the side and get powder burns on my hand (on my corpse). So wouldn't that make Rosenbaum's action defensive, and not the result of a "belligerent" or "hyperaggressive" nature?
Is there video? What are the facts?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 3:32 AM
Quote:Judge Schroeder ruled to exclude evidence in the form of a video taken two weeks before the events in question, purportedly showing Rittenhouse calling some people “looters” and stating that he wished he had a gun to shoot them. That seems highly probative of his intent two weeks later. Nor is it unduly prejudicial — it is an example of his own words, not some other form of extrinsic evidence.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
What are the facts? That's what I want to know.
Is there video? What are the facts?
https://web.archive.org/web/20211115174026/https://www.independent.co.
uk/voices/rittenhouse-judge-schroeder-prosecutor-b1957956.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 3:53 AM
Quote:My original quote was the 2nd post of this thread, on 31 Aug 2020. These facts I posted seem to have been ignored by the Libtards participating in this thread.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Some have posted that Kyle is obviously guilty of some of the 6 charges filed against him.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm not sure if you are serious or not.
Plenty of lies posted elsewhere on this board on this topic.
There are no Assault Weapons in WI, not even the ugly mugs of Libtard women.
Until 2017, people needed to be 12 years old to carry a shotgun or rifle in WI, but then Gov Walker signed the Law eliminating the minimum age requirement. Handguns possession is a bit more murky. Cannon are legal in MI, but I don't think so in WI.
The rifle Kyle had was purchased in WI, owned by a WI resident, never left the State on the day of the attacks upon Kyle, and was never subject to IL Laws.
Many IL residents venture to WI to hunt and partake in celebration of 2nd Amendment Rights (which are much curtailed in IL). There is a popular bumper sticker which says "WISCONSIN: Illinois' Largest State Park"
Also, Trump had to call Gov Skeletor Evers and plead him to call out the National Guard (which Evers controls, as Gov) - because Evers didn't want to restore any civilized environment in WI (rioting in both Kenosha and WI, and this weekend in Green Bay)
Which charge(s)?
Libtard out-of-Staters and citislickers have blathered on about the weapons charge, carrying a dangerous weapon while under 18 years of age. They reference State Law which prohibits carrying short barrel shotgun or short barrel rifle.
Kids older than 12 can carry shotguns and rifles, and 13 year olds don't need a hunting license to do so.
Judge Schroeder stated that this law was complicated and he needed to review it.
So what charge did Kyle obviously violate?
Sounds like the Judge finally threw out this nonsense charge, which was filed by the racist Libtard Prosecutor who had to be taught the Law by Rittenhouse during the trial.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 4:00 AM
I have read that Kyle is part hispanic, I think it was 6ix who posted that. If true, any mention of that has been scrubbed by the Fake News Libtard search engines.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Judge Drops Rittenhouse Gun Charge, Finds He Legally Carried AR-15 In Kenosha
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/judge-drops-rittenhouse-gun-charge-f
inds-he-legally-carried-ar-15-kenosha
Or, for those who bother to follow the embedded link...
Quote:
Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?
Johnathan Turley
In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law and could not state with certainty what it means in this case. The statement could effectively knock out the misdemeanor gun possession count — the one count that could still be in play for the jury after the prosecution’s case on the more serious offense appeared to collapse in court. A close examination of that provision reveals ample reason to question not just its meaning but its application to this case.
The unlawful possession of the gun has been a prominent fact cited not only by the prosecutors but the press.
At trial, however, prosecutor Thomas Binger at points seemed to be learning the governing law from Rittenhouse. For example, he pressed Rittenhouse on why he did not just purchase a handgun rather than an AR-15. Rittenhouse replied he could not possess a hand gun at his age. Binger then asked in apparent disbelief that the law allowed him to have an AR-15 but not a handgun and Rittenhouse said yes. Binger then moved on after seemingly drawing out a point for the defense.
The exchange was all the more baffling because it drew attention to the fact that one of Binger’s alleged “victims” was an adult named Gaige Grosskreutz who also decided to bring a handgun to the protests and pointed his .40 caliber Glock at the head of Rittenhouse when he was shot in the arm.
However, the most damaging moment came outside of the presence of the jury when the judge drilled down on the law. He told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.” He added that he failed to understand how an “ordinary citizen” could understand what is illegal.
It is hard to understand how the count could be given to the jury without a clear understanding of what it means. It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute. Criminal laws are supposed to be interpreted narrowly. It is called the “rule of lenity” and has been around in the English system for centuries. For example, in 1547, the court was faced with a law making it a felony to steal “Horses, Geldings or Mares.” Given the use of plural nouns, the court ruled that it did not apply to stealing just one horse.
The problem with the Wisconsin statute is not a problem of pluralization but definition. It is not clear that the statute actually bars possession by Rittenhouse. Indeed, it may come down to the length of Rittenhouse’s weapon and the prosecutors never bothered to measure it and place it into evidence.
In Wisconsin, minors cannot possess short-barreled rifles under Section 941.28. Putting aside the failure to put evidence into the record to claim such a short length, it does not appear to be the case here. Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson MP-15 with an advertised barrel length of 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches. That is not a short barrel.
Then there is the rest of the statute and ultimately the word “and.” Under Section 948.60(2)(a) (“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”), “[a]ny person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” That makes Rittenhouse guilty, right?
Well, you then have to look at the subsection (c), which states that “This section appNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME