Ritttenhouse Trial

[nursej22]

The Rittenhouse trial has begun in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The prosecution is presenting first, but apparently the defense argument will be self-defense. So a 17 year old travels out of state with his rifle to a demonstration because he fears for his life? 

 

[heron, ASN, RN]

33 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Interesting that you would say I called in reinforcements when I have several not so polite engagements with several members daily. I'm usually the odd man out. Woops I mean the odd man/woman/other

(How interesting that a brand new screen name shows up parroting the same old tired vitriol you’ve been peddling since you showed up in these threads. Sock puppet, anyone?)?

What does "theoretical identity" mean exactly?

(It means I don’t believe a word of it. Any body can claim to be anything online. Your little Candace a Owens impression is just a little too convenient. Not to mention totally consistent with the right wingnut go-to tactic of trotting out tokens as if dark skin magically turns BS into a reasoned argument)

Race card and victim card? Whoi says I'm a victim? You? Do you try and victimize me? Is that's why you say that? I most certainly do not feel like a victim.

(Then why the constant snark about being called out on your nonsense? “Boo hoo … those meanies are making fun of me!”)

You might mistake me calling out hypocrisy as self victimization . I do not play the "race card".

(And yet you keep bringing it up whenever you’re challenged)

I mean am I lying?

(yes)

 

Quote

 

[Cclm, LPN]

12 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

These are good points.  

Additionally, doesn't Wisconsin indicate that you can't claim self defense if you are breaking the law already AND that the use of force in defending oneself should be proportional or only that necessary to protect oneself? 

I agree. Those are good points. I can clearly see the connection. 

But.  Those dogs did not choose to be there. The rioters did choose to be there. The rioters stayed there during the riot in a state that allows open carry. They saw what was happening in the area, they knew there were open carry laws and they knew Rittenhouse had a weapon. Rosenbaum still went after Rittenhouse having full knowledge of the above , the other two shot went after him  even after they knew he shot Rosenbaum.  

The dogs did not choose to be there nor did they acknowledge personal injury risk from being in a riot where violence is likely. 

3 hours ago, heron said:

 

 

Yes to what ? Trying to victimize me? As another member would say, you have failed to establish your opinion with facts and instead are being emotional. About what? My race, gender nationality? What am I lying about? How was I being challenged? What's your definition of that? Any info that doesn't go along with your narrative? 

Or that I've been accused of being a white supremacist type thinker and a queer hater? I can prove the latter on theses very threads. .Can you prove anything? No

What's wrong with Candice Owens? A black person who doesn't think like a black women should by your far left ideology? 

Snark? I really do not care what you think. Nor do I need to prove anything. 

[Cclm, LPN]

18 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

That was part of the prosecution's witness testimony or evidence, that the fellow was chasing Rittenhouse? In the aerial video who ran into the bottom right frame of the video first, Rittenhouse or Rosenbaum?

 

If he hadn't taken the action he did Rosenbaum and Huber would not have died that night. 

But Rittenhouse might have but actually most likely would have. 

He defended himself. 

[Cclm, LPN]

17 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Do I view them as what?

 

Rittenhouse is the only stupid idiot in Kenosha at the protest who shot and killed anyone, that's why he's on trial.  

 

Nope. I saw several stupid idiots setting fires, damaging personal property...... chasing armed people. Are they not idiots? 

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

Nope. I saw several stupid idiots setting fires, damaging personal property...... chasing armed people. Are they not idiots? 

Perhaps you didn't understand my remark using your language. I didn't deny that there were "idiots"  engaging in "stupid" behavior that night.  I just happen to think that loss of life and personal injury are more consequential than property damage and pointed out that the "idiot" on trial also engaged in "stupid" behavior.    

My view is that it was not smart for Rittenhouse to illegally carry that deadly weapon on the streets of a city in another state during a potentially chaotic and confusing public demonstration. It was not smart for him to leave that property or the company of the adults in his party.  Yes, there were a number of "idiots" that night.  Which one ended up being the most dangerous? 

Why do you suppose that Rittenhouse immediately escalated to shooting his gun? He didn't lose possession of the firearm to Rosenbaum.  The fellow was off balance and unarmed...not a real big guy.  Rittenhouse was in the driver's seat...he could have hit the guy with the stock of his gun...or knocked him down...or kept running and shouted for help...

I thought it was interesting that the defense focused on that photo of the handgun being pointed in the direction of the defendant's head.  The defense attorney kept saying that the witness was aiming at Rittenhouse.  That's an absurd notion really.  In that frame the witness' right bicep is exploding into bits which means that the witness was likely not capable of voluntary gross motor movement of his lower arm at that moment in time. The general direction that the handgun is pointing at that point would likely have more to do with his momentum, the weight of the weapon and the response of the arm to the massive trauma to the bicep and surrounding structures and tissues there near the elbow.  If you consider the power and velocity of the bullet which hit his arm at the elbow it's easy to understand that the force of the impact would have pushed his elbow more in line with the trajectory of the bullet and the gun would move toward the center...or in the direction of the bullet's origin.  

2 hours ago, Cclm said:

But Rittenhouse might have but actually most likely would have. 

He defended himself. 

Maybe. Might have been.  Most likely.

The other people are dead or have extensive traumatic injury with the associated costs.

That's his defense, yes.  

[Beerman, BSN]

5 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

My view is that it was not smart for Rittenhouse to illegally carry that deadly weapon on the streets of a city in another state during a potentially chaotic and confusing public demonstration. It was not smart for him to leave that property or the company of the adults in his party. 

Most would agree.  But, it's irrelevant.

5 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Why do you suppose that Rittenhouse immediately escalated to shooting his gun? He didn't lose possession of the firearm to Rosenbaum.  The fellow was off balance and unarmed...not a real big guy.  Rittenhouse was in the driver's seat...he could have hit the guy with the stock of his gun...or knocked him down...or kept running and shouted for help...

He didn't immediately escalate to shooting his gun.  For both shootings, he ran first.  In the first shooting, he heard a gun shot behind him, and a few seconds later Rosenbaum caught up to him and lunged for the gun.

In the second shooting, he again was being chased, then tripped and fell.  He then was being attacked.  And, the guy who was shot in the arm admitted he had a gun pointed at him.

5 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I thought it was interesting that the defense focused on that photo of the handgun being pointed in the direction of the defendant's head.  The defense attorney kept saying that the witness was aiming at Rittenhouse.  That's an absurd notion really.

It's obvious that the defense would focus on that photo. 

Absurd?  There is a picture of it, and the witness admitted he had it pointing at Rittenhouse.  Doesn't even matter.  Rittenhouse had been chased by a mob, fell on the ground, had been physically attacked, and now one of the mob is brandishing a gun, and  at the least it is pointed in his direction.  Does he really need to wait for the gun to be precisely aimed at him?

Do you think Rittenhouse would be alive or seriously injured if he hadn't shot those people?

 

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Most would agree.  But, it's irrelevant.

He didn't immediately escalate to shooting his gun.  For both shootings, he ran first.  In the first shooting, he heard a gun shot behind him, and a few seconds later Rosenbaum caught up to him and lunged for the gun.

In the second shooting, he again was being chased, then tripped and fell.  He then was being attacked.  And, the guy who was shot in the arm admitted he had a gun pointed at him.

It's obvious that the defense would focus on that photo. 

Absurd?  There is a picture of it, and the witness admitted he had it pointing at Rittenhouse.  Doesn't even matter.  Rittenhouse had been chased by a mob, fell on the ground, had been physically attacked, and now one of the mob is brandishing a gun, and  at the least it is pointed in his direction.  Does he really need to wait for the gun to be precisely aimed at him?

Do you think Rittenhouse would be alive or seriously injured if he hadn't shot those people?

 

It's not really irrelevant. Rittenhouse's judgement put him in the situation. If people want to characterize the behavior or judgement of protesters as stupid or ignorant it's only logical and equitable to apply the same level of scrutiny or criticism to the judgment of the only person to have killed people that night.  After all, his entire defense is based upon his right to defend himself after he shot an unarmed man because he was afraid. I believe that he was afraid.  

I'll concede that he was running away from Rosenbaum until he stopped and turned around and discharged his rifle.  He certainly was running from the scene of a crime and from protesters wanting to detain or neutralize an active shooter when he fell in the street.  

I explained why it was absurd to presume that the fellow who was shot in the arm was intentionally pointing the hand portion of the arm. As the high powered rifle bullet was impacting his arm at the position of the joint (hinge) the position of the lower arm and hand would be changed.  Hold your arm out and have someone firmly strike your arm just above the elbow moving quickly in a direction across the body from left to right and slightly up (similar to a bullet shot from the ground up at a target). When you do that you see the mechanical response of the limb is to the move in the direction of the bullet and the "hinge" (elbow) closes in reaction.  That's physics. That closing motion of the joint, completely involuntary, moved the hand with the gun in the direction of the shooter. 

It's important to remember that a gun was pointed and discharged in Grosskreutz' direction before his handgun ever reached that position of pointing in the direction of Rittenhouse. Who's gun was pointed and discharged? No one discharged a firearm at Rittenhouse. 

In the USA does an active shooter have a right to expect that he can just walk/run away without citizens trying to detain him and neutralize the threat that he represents? The whole good guy with a gun scenario got interesting in this case.  

Clearly Rittenhouse would be alive if he hadn't shot those people.  He DID shoot 2 people to death and he's still alive so he certainly would have been less likely to be harmed had he not shot them. Rittenhouse and his weapon were the threat.  That seems self evident. 

[MunoRN, RN]

22 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

These are good points.  

Additionally, doesn't Wisconsin indicate that you can't claim self defense if you are breaking the law already AND that the use of force in defending oneself should be proportional or only that necessary to protect oneself? 

As I understand it, you can still claim self -defense but a valid claim of self-defense just changes the type of homicide committed if the reason someone had to defend themself is that they made choices that were reckless or negligent.  Even if Rittenhouse was justified in defending himself using a firearm, if he got himself in that situation through recklessness then he's still responsible for their deaths just at a lower charge than if he had set out to kill these individuals.  

3 hours ago, Beerman said:

Most would agree.  But, it's irrelevant.

It's the whole basis of many of the charges against him, so not all that irrelevant.

[heron, ASN, RN]

16 hours ago, Cclm said:

I agree. Those are good points. I can clearly see the connection. 

But.  Those dogs did not choose to be there. The rioters did choose to be there. The rioters stayed there during the riot in a state that allows open carry. They saw what was happening in the area, they knew there were open carry laws and they knew Rittenhouse had a weapon. Rosenbaum still went after Rittenhouse having full knowledge of the above , the other two shot went after him  even after they knew he shot Rosenbaum.  

The dogs did not choose to be there nor did they acknowledge personal injury risk from being in a riot where violence is likely. 

Yes to what ? Trying to victimize me? As another member would say, you have failed to establish your opinion with facts and instead are being emotional. About what? My race, gender nationality? What am I lying about? How was I being challenged? What's your definition of that? Any info that doesn't go along with your narrative? 

Or that I've been accused of being a white supremacist type thinker and a queer hater? I can prove the latter on theses very threads. .Can you prove anything? No

What's wrong with Candice Owens? A black person who doesn't think like a black women should by your far left ideology? 

Snark? I really do not care what you think. Nor do I need to prove anything. 

Quite the rant for someone who doesn’t care. Pobrecita - do you need your safe space?

[toomuchbaloney]

Rittenhouse’s Judge Scolds Jeffrey Toobin and Other CNN Analysts

I was surprised by this exchange during the trial.  

[toomuchbaloney]

Prosecution rests.

 

[Beerman, BSN]

14 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

It's not really irrelevant. Rittenhouse's judgement put him in the situation. If people want to characterize the behavior or judgement of protesters as stupid or ignorant it's only logical and equitable to apply the same level of scrutiny or criticism to the judgment of the only person to have killed people that night.  After all, his entire defense is based upon his right to defend himself after he shot an unarmed man because he was afraid. I believe that he was afraid.  

Yes, lots of questionable behavior by many.  But, that and everything else in this paragraph is indeed, irrelevant.

14 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I explained why it was absurd to presume that the fellow who was shot in the arm was intentionally pointing the hand portion of the arm. As the high powered rifle bullet was impacting his arm at the position of the joint (hinge) the position of the lower arm and hand would be changed.  Hold your arm out and have someone firmly strike your arm just above the elbow moving quickly in a direction across the body from left to right and slightly up (similar to a bullet shot from the ground up at a target). When you do that you see the mechanical response of the limb is to the move in the direction of the bullet and the "hinge" (elbow) closes in reaction.  That's physics. That closing motion of the joint, completely involuntary, moved the hand with the gun in the direction of the shooter. 

Did you not see that witness admit he wasn't shot at until he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse?  Did you not see the facepalm by the prosecutor immediately after that admission?

14 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Clearly Rittenhouse would be alive if he hadn't shot those people.  He DID shoot 2 people to death and he's still alive so he certainly would have been less likely to be harmed had he not shot them. Rittenhouse and his weapon were the threat.  That seems self evident. 

don't see how to come to that conclusion.  He may still be alive, but it's certainly not clear to most.