Ritttenhouse Trial

Tweety, BSN, RN · Nov 3, 2021

I think the self-defense argument if they can pull it off is the way to go.

For the life of me though will never understand why any parent would put their 17 year old in harm's way with a weapon like this to "protect" people at a protest when a state of emergency was called by authorities. So much dysfunction about this entire situation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59138213

toomuchbaloney · Nov 3, 2021

My understanding from the trial is that the gun was purchased for Kyle by his older friend (and sister's boyfriend). That fellow said that Kyle's firearm was locked in his father's gun safe until somehow Kyle was in possession of the weapon on the 25th. Apparently only the father could open that gun safe. It was stored that way supposedly because Kyle wasn't old enough yet to carry it and it was to be used for home protection.

That young man testified and he is under criminal indictment for federal firearms laws related to his behavior that resulted in a death. He faces prison time.

Cclm, LPN · Nov 3, 2021

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

I think the self-defense argument if they can pull it off is the way to go.

For the life of me though will never understand why any parent would put their 17 year old in harm's way with a weapon like this to "protect" people at a protest when a state of emergency was called by authorities. So much dysfunction about this entire situation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59138213

I agree. He shouldn't have been there and he wasn't old enough to have a gun. He definitely is guilty of passing a illegal fire arm but I feel it it still text book self defense.

IMO they may have had a better shot at a lesser charge.

toomuchbaloney · Nov 3, 2021

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

I agree. He shouldn't have been there and he wasn't old enough to have a gun. He definitely is guilty of passing a illegal fire arm but I feel it it still text book self defense.

IMO they may have had a better shot at a lesser charge.

It's no secret that he's likely to be treated with leniency by the jury. Neither of the people that he killed were armed.

Naturally, the prosecution is playing all of the video that the detective compiled from all of the digital sources that he could search. Videos that I haven't seen before. I've sat on a murder jury before. I see a kid too young to possess and carry the firearm that he uses to shoot unarmed people. I see an almost 18 year old kid with a dangerous weapon mischaracterizing his training, skills and duties to someone filming him. I see him openly carrying a weapon and walking away from his "buddy". Following that he interacts negatively with some people, hears gunfire somewhere behind him and then shoots the guy with the plastic bag because he (Kyle) is apparently defending himself from the other gunshot.

In all he discharges his weapon 8 times in 2 different locations. Then he runs to the police vehicle line where they ignore the calls from the crowd that he had just shot people and send him on his way.

Rittenhouse looks pretty shook up during this video portion...looking at the people he shot...

Cclm, LPN · Nov 3, 2021

29 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

It's no secret that he's likely to be treated with leniency by the jury. Neither of the people that he killed were armed.

Naturally, the prosecution is playing all of the video that the detective compiled from all of the digital sources that he could search. Videos that I haven't seen before. I've sat on a murder jury before. I see a kid too young to possess and carry the firearm that he uses to shoot unarmed people. I see an almost 18 year old kid with a dangerous weapon mischaracterizing his training, skills and duties to someone filming him. I see him openly carrying a weapon and walking away from his "buddy". Following that he interacts negatively with some people, hears gunfire somewhere behind him and then shoots the guy with the plastic bag because he (Kyle) is apparently defending himself from the other gunshot.

In all he discharges his weapon 8 times in 2 different locations. Then he runs to the police vehicle line where they ignore the calls from the crowd that he had just shot people and send him on his way.

Rittenhouse looks pretty shook up during this video portion...looking at the people he shot...

There's hope for us yet! I don't disagree with everything you said!! It's discusting how both sides are already using cheap tricks and tactics. Going to be a political trial not a justice trial unfortunately. Imo

toomuchbaloney · Nov 3, 2021

19 minutes ago, Cclm said:

There's hope for us yet! I don't disagree with everything you said!! It's discusting how both sides are already using cheap tricks and tactics. Going to be a political trial not a justice trial unfortunately. Imo

I don't agree at all. We've only heard the opening remarks of the defense and their cross examination of prosecution witnesses. They need the dead and injured fellows to seem like scary and dangerous people so that the jury can say that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting them with a gun that he broke laws to carry in a place that he shouldn't have been.

The prosecution is playing video and describing what was happening at the time that Kyle got scared and started shooting people "in self defense". There is a ton of video and eye witness accounts of the events. The defense is going to have to show that Kyle was actually threatened with something besides a plastic bag and the perception that he was the target. Why did he think that he was the target and then turn around and shoot the guy chasing him? In the videos the only people openly carrying firearms before the shooting started were those sympathetic to Rittenhouse. So far the presentation from prosecution has been very matter of fact.

There's no question that he killed these people. The question is do citizens also get to say that they shot an unarmed person because they were afraid and escape consequences...like police have?

Cclm, LPN · Nov 3, 2021

7 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I don't agree at all. We've only heard the opening remarks of the defense and their cross examination of prosecution witnesses. They need the dead and injured fellows to seem like scary and dangerous people so that the jury can say that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting them with a gun that he broke laws to carry in a place that he shouldn't have been.

The prosecution is playing video and describing what was happening at the time that Kyle got scared and started shooting people "in self defense". There is a ton of video and eye witness accounts of the events. The defense is going to have to show that Kyle was actually threatened with something besides a plastic bag and the perception that he was the target. Why did he think that he was the target and then turn around and shoot the guy chasing him? In the videos the only people openly carrying firearms before the shooting started were those sympathetic to Rittenhouse. So far the presentation from prosecution has been very matter of fact.

There's no question that he killed these people. The question is do citizens also get to say that they shot an unarmed person because they were afraid and escape consequences...like police have?

Definitely a regular citizen should not have the same discretion as the pol8ce.

I feel that he was attacked and I think I would be afraid for my life as well. Especially the guy with the skate board and the other guy who also had a gun. Not to mention a adjitaed riot crowd chasing him. In reality he could have stopped running and take a few out. Except he was retreating. Had he wanted to kill in the first degree he would have at this point. Again, he was trying to get away. Not to mention that the only time he shot, there was someone at close proximity to him. I do not believe he would have shot anyone if no one was chasing him.

One of the biggest factors for me was when the guy he shot in the arm, lowered his gun and suggested no threat by momentarily putting his hands up(as to demonstrate he was no longer hostile) then grabs for his gun again and this is when Kyle shot him in the arm.

Kyle was close enough and I'm pretty sure knows how to handle a gun, would have ended up fatally shooting him and the guy would be dead. If that was his intention.

He shouldn't have been there and he shouldn't have had a gun. These are criminal offense. Even if someone is committing an offense, or somewhere they shouldn't be, doesn't make an attempt of bodily harm okay. Everyone has the right to safety and murder is just as illegal as it is when someone is not in the process of a crime.

I'm also pretty sure that if he was guilty of murder 1 he wouldn't have tried to give himself up to the police

In which he did do and is what you are supposed to do if you were protecting yourself.

I guess we will see. However none of it fits within the parameters of first degree murder. I'm not sure how he could have premeditated any of that.

toomuchbaloney · Nov 3, 2021

If he was protecting himself he wouldn't have been there. He was a minor from another community. He was openly carrying a weapon that he broke laws to possess. He misrepresented himself as an EMT but then did not render any first aid to the gun shot victims.

Apparently he brought a weapon and carried it conspicuously to protect himself from fists and feet and random skateboards AFTER he turns around and shoots an unarmed man, leaves him to die without providing aid and runs away from the scene. He killed the first person before he was struck or kicked or fell down to have his weapon grabbed. He should never have been in that situation...a teenager with a deadly weapon "protecting" property away from home. His judgement was clearly terrible and people died because of it.

If he had not been carrying a deadly weapon illegally they would be alive. If he had stayed on that original property they would be alive. If he had stayed home and protected his friend's house they would be alive. Rittenhouse killed unarmed people because he made a series of very bad choices and then panicked and shot some people.

It simply remains to be seen whether or not the jury will hold him accountable for the bad choices and fear driven actions that led to homicide.

Cclm, LPN · Nov 4, 2021

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

If he was protecting himself he wouldn't have been there. He was a minor from another community. He was openly carrying a weapon that he broke laws to possess. He misrepresented himself as an EMT but then did not render any first aid to the gun shot victims.

Apparently he brought a weapon and carried it conspicuously to protect himself from fists and feet and random skateboards AFTER he turns around and shoots an unarmed man, leaves him to die without providing aid and runs away from the scene. He killed the first person before he was struck or kicked or fell down to have his weapon grabbed. He should never have been in that situation...a teenager with a deadly weapon "protecting" property away from home. His judgement was clearly terrible and people died because of it.

If he had not been carrying a deadly weapon illegally they would be alive. If he had stayed on that original property they would be alive. If he had stayed home and protected his friend's house they would be alive. Rittenhouse killed unarmed people because he made a series of very bad choices and then panicked and shot some people.

It simply remains to be seen whether or not the jury will hold him accountable for the bad choices and fear driven actions that led to homicide.

He didn't render aid because there was a mob chasing him.

Even if what you say is true, it's not murder 1.

And How many people would be alive if they would have complied with police. A non issue correct?

toomuchbaloney · Nov 4, 2021

33 minutes ago, Cclm said:

He didn't render aid because there was a mob chasing him.

Even if what you say is true, it's not murder 1.

And How many people would be alive if they would have complied with police. A non issue correct?

He didn't render aid at first because he made a phone call while standing at the feet of the dying man and then he ran.

Why are you commenting on "murder 1"? Let me help you out with some basic facts;

Quote

The charges facing Rittenhouse include first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide and attempted first-degree intentional reckless homicide. An additional charge of violation of curfew the night of the shootings was added last week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

How many police will remain employed if they comply with public health and employment requirements? Both of us can play stupid games but discussion is more fun when we talk about things that we know something about. I know something about this topic because I've watched or listened to the proceedings. How about you?

Cclm, LPN · Nov 4, 2021

6 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

He didn't render aid at first because he made a phone call while standing at the feet of the dying man and then he ran.

Why are you commenting on "murder 1"? Let me help you out with some basic facts;

How many police will remain employed if they comply with public health and employment requirements? Both of us can play stupid games but discussion is more fun when we talk about things that we know something about. I know something about this topic because I've watched or listened to the proceedings. How about you?

Gotcha! So have I. All of it. Watched it all. There you are with your redundant vocabulary specification.

1 and 1st can be the same thing because 1 is 1. So I said murder one. Anyone with a brain would figure that out.

The difference here is that I am willing to watch it all with the ability to change my mind. Ypu have several times demonstrated that this is something you cannot do very well.

So we will see but will you actually?