Published
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?
On 11/8/2021 at 1:43 PM, toomuchbaloney said: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.
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.
Or maybe, the witness didn't eat his banana that day getting the required potassium. So because of a lack of potassium, he suffered a muscle spasm and that's why his gun was pointed ant Rittenhouse.
Seriously tho, the guy admitted to pointing the gun, did you miss this? Purposely or not?
4 minutes ago, Beerman said:The thought has crossed my mind that the poster is simply hedging his bets. I don't really have a understanding of how he has any insight into the jury, but thought I'd give him a chance to explain.
I'll do it for you. It was Trumps fault!
22 minutes ago, Beerman said:You've said that multiple times. Why do you think that?
I think he's a young white male who believed that his life was in danger and the jury will find his presence on the witness stand sympathetic. They may hold him accountable for reckless endangerment. If the judge allows questioning and evidence of reckless judgement or behavior.
22 minutes ago, Cclm said:To set up his argument when Rittenhouse is found innocent. Probably will reply to you something like, in the propaganda era led by conservatives and their exploitation of the 2nd admendment from Trumps lies and so on and so on.
Low class
Although his portrayal as a patriot defending lawlessness has been interesting.
On 11/8/2021 at 9:04 PM, 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.
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.
Do you really think for one second that they were only trying to "neutralize or detain" him? It hasn't been determined as a crime. And if you want to inflammatory call him an active shooter I must insist you do the same as for the rioters not "protesters
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.
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Even if possible, not likely.
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.
Yeah. It was pointed but not shot at that time. Not until the latter.
11 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:I think he's a young white male who believed that his life was in danger and the jury will find his presence on the witness stand sympathetic. They may hold him accountable for reckless endangerment. If the judge allows questioning and evidence of reckless judgement or behavior.
I can see his testimony as being pivotal. And him being the child he is rather than a tough man with an assault weapon was quite effective in painting him as a victim with high ideals with fear and regret, as opposed to an aggressor shooting people.
49 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:I think he's a young white male who believed that his life was in danger and the jury will find his presence on the witness stand sympathetic. They may hold him accountable for reckless endangerment. If the judge allows questioning and evidence of reckless judgement or behavior.
Yup. There's the set up. Because he is white that's why the jury was sympathetic. Probably because the jury are covert white supremacists.
Liberal logic= if we lose, blame it on white supremacy even if a poc is elected as well by the same voters, not to mention female and the first of both POC and female. . (Virgina). If something happens that we don't agree with, blame it on white(this trial).
Mark my words. If he's found not guilty, cnn, NBC will be blaming this on "whitness " and such. Joyless Reid and Don Lemon and especially that race baiter racist Micheal Eric Dyson
4 minutes ago, Cclm said:5 minutes ago, chare said:First, he wouldn't be found innocent, he would be found not guilty. There is a big difference.
Oh okay. Got me.
My apologies. This was not intended to be a "got you." This is a concept that many don't seem to grasp, and is much more than semantics.
2 minutes ago, chare said:My apologies. This was not intended to be a "got you." This is a concept that many don't seem to grasp, and is much more than semantics.
Okay. My apologies as well. I get reactive on here. It a good reminder to myself to not be so negative! ? I'll look it up or you can post it if you don't mind.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:I think he's a young white male who believed that his life was in danger and the jury will find his presence on the witness stand sympathetic. They may hold him accountable for reckless endangerment. If the judge allows questioning and evidence of reckless judgement or behavior.
imo that's not being lenient, if he believed his life was in danger. That's finding he acted in self defense, and therefore is not guilty.
Beerman, BSN
4,429 Posts
The thought has crossed my mind that the poster is simply hedging his bets. I don't really have a understanding of how he has any insight into the jury, but thought I'd give him a chance to explain.