Ritttenhouse Trial

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? 

 

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, Cclm said:

I made a general reference to the incident that caused the riot in the first place. You directly asked me about what I was referring to. I told you. Now you have gone off of something you deemed off topic.  

Maybe I will start another thread. Perhaps on police shootings and behaviors associated with use of force in relation to how you act when being arrested. Or do not act. 

The Rittenhouse trial isn't about a riot. It's about a teenager traveling to another state, breaking laws and killing two unarmed people. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
On 11/6/2021 at 6:25 AM, Cclm said:

I'm confused. Why does a "milita" have a negative connotation but "rioters" doesn't? Even when one is illegal and one is not. Not always anyway. 

Please explain this comment and question.  Are you objecting to my use of the term militia in describing the armed men that traveled to Kenosha the same night that Rittenhouse killed those men? 

As a side note...do you think that the people in the streets protesting police violence were intimidated or scared to see groups of openly armed civilians patrolling areas? Would you have had a heightened sense of danger if you were in that environment? If people saw those militia milling and parading about in the streets, displaying very dangerous firearms on their torsos, and worried that the obvious presence of guns would escalate an already tense situation...they were right.  The presence of guns at that protest didn't keep anyone safe, certainly not the victims nor defendant.  Rittenhouse's story is that his weapon made him a target, the dead people wanted to take his gun (he was also probably kind of mouthy according to the testimony). In the absence of the gun on Kyle's person, none of this would likely have happened.  Psychologically we understand that holding the gun changed Rittenhouse's perception of his authority and his vulnerability.  We also can see that it appears that the man with mental health issues (Rosenbaum) was triggered by the presence of the armed group.  The testimony paints a picture of a man acting out multiple times within eyesight of the fellows.  He taunted them and mocked them. He couldn't help himself apparently.  

I think the only people who died at that protest that night died because of Rittenhouse's weapon. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The Rittenhouse trial isn't about a riot. It's about a teenager traveling to another state, breaking laws and killing two unarmed people. 

Yeah I know that. He was at a riot because of the false precieved police violence. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Please explain this comment and question.  Are you objecting to my use of the term militia in describing the armed men that traveled to Kenosha the same night that Rittenhouse killed those men? 

As a side note...do you think that the people in the streets protesting police violence were intimidated or scared to see groups of openly armed civilians patrolling areas? Would you have had a heightened sense of danger if you were in that environment? If people saw those militia milling and parading about in the streets, displaying very dangerous firearms on their torsos, and worried that the obvious presence of guns would escalate an already tense situation...they were right.  The presence of guns at that protest didn't keep anyone safe, certainly not the victims nor defendant.  Rittenhouse's story is that his weapon made him a target, the dead people wanted to take his gun (he was also probably kind of mouthy according to the testimony). In the absence of the gun on Kyle's person, none of this would likely have happened.  Psychologically we understand that holding the gun changed Rittenhouse's perception of his authority and his vulnerability.  We also can see that it appears that the man with mental health issues (Rosenbaum) was triggered by the presence of the armed group.  The testimony paints a picture of a man acting out multiple times within eyesight of the fellows.  He taunted them and mocked them. He couldn't help himself apparently.  

I think the only people who died at that protest that night died because of Rittenhouse's weapon. 

I wouldn't be at a riot so I would never put myself in a position that I had a "heightened sense of danger" or at least would hold the intelligence to conclude that there would be danger/violence at a riot. After watching the riots of the previous year and in a state with open carry. Nor would I chase an armed person with a gun or hit him with a,  skate board, drop kicked him in the head and try and take his weapon. Especially when he demonstrated he would fire because he did several times. I would if I was stupid I guess. Those people are stupid. 

The weapon saved Rittenhouse's life and some property damage as well. Mouthy is very subjective, saying, "I love you too man" in response to "f you and such". Not mouthy IMO and quite mild. I would gave said allot worse. Where is the evidence that he was mocking and taunting them? 

I know that" the only one who killed anyone that night was Rittenhouse I" s being plugged hard.  I see that Rittenhouse is alive because he defended himself from several people who were trying to possibly kill him or at the very least cause bodily harm. What do you think would have happened to Rittenhouse if he didn't defend his life that night? If they caught up with him and/or were successful in taking his weapon from him? 

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA.

Kyle was well within his rights to carry that firearm and would be considered to be militia as age 17 is the requirement.  Putting himself in the middle of a riot involving people who have shown to be extremely violent in the last several years was not wise.  Thankfully he managed to handle himself well in the situation.  

Him receiving any charges just goes to show how biased the justice system could be.  If his skin was darker he would get getting a settlement from the local government but instead he gets bogus charges.  Hope he becomes a millionaire suing the multiple media outlets spreading lies about him.

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
36 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Yeah I know that. He was at a riot because of the false precieved police violence. 

That's in evidence as Rittenhouse's reason for being in that city after curfew?

 

25 minutes ago, Cclm said:

The weapon saved Rittenhouse's life and some property damage as well. Mouthy is very subjective, saying, "I love you too man" in response to "f you and such". Not mouthy IMO and quite mild. I would gave said allot worse. Where is the evidence that he was mocking and taunting them? 

That's my impression from the testimony. The veteran who didn't really know Rittenhouse, assumed that he was at least 18 because he was openly carrying that rifle and believed that he was an EMT. If I'm not mistaken he said that he spoke to Rittenhouse and others about ignoring any taunts or provocations, about not verbally responding to negative engagement.  

When the videographer walked with Rittenhouse there were 3 fellows standing together and Rittenhouse approached them about needing any aid. One of those fellows indicated that asking people if they needed aid was much different from the way Rittenhouse had interacted with them earlier.  That's when the videographer got separated from Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse went to the other car lot without his buddy and started shooting people because he was afraid.

It will be interesting to see if there are other witnesses who will have eyewitness perspectives of Rosenbaum's agitation and Rittenhouse's demeanor. 

46 minutes ago, Cclm said:

What do you think would have happened to Rittenhouse if he didn't defend his life that night? If they caught up with him and/or were successful in taking his weapon from him? 

Rittenhouse wouldn't have killed Huber or ruined the arm of the paramedic...that much for sure would have happened had they caught him and taken his weapon. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
7 minutes ago, CRNAbro said:

Kyle was well within his rights to carry that firearm 

He was violating Wisconsin state law to be in possession of that weapon at age 17 years. You should look that up because it's hard to take seriously anything after that clear "error" in your very first sentence. 

 

10 minutes ago, CRNAbro said:

Thankfully he managed to handle himself well in the situation

That's why he's facing charges for the deaths of two people and reckless care of his weapon? Even if he's treated as leniently as I expect, there's no question that he broke laws to be armed and present in a riot, in another state and that bad judgment and his immaturity in the face of perceived danger resulted in death and disability.  

 

14 minutes ago, CRNAbro said:

If his skin was darker he would get getting a settlement from the local government but instead he gets bogus charges

So you believe that a black man carrying a rifle could have walked toward those police vehicles with people pointing and shouting that he shot some people ... and the police would have just let him walk by? The police said in testimony that the (black in your scenario) guy sometimes had his hands "up" but other times put his hands on the weapon as he approached and he wasn't following their commands.  You are probably right.  The police might have simply shot him and his family would have gotten a settlement. 

 

19 minutes ago, CRNAbro said:

Hope he becomes a millionaire suing the multiple media outlets spreading lies about him

He's done pretty well already.  Lots of people seem interested in giving him money. There was some reporting earlier about police groups even donating to causes like his.  

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA.
31 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

He was violating Wisconsin state law to be in possession of that weapon at age 17 years. You should look that up because it's hard to take seriously anything after that clear "error" in your very first sentence. 

That's why he's facing charges for the deaths of two people and reckless care of his weapon? Even if he's treated as leniently as I expect, there's no question that he broke laws to be armed and present in a riot, in another state and that bad judgment and his immaturity in the face of perceived danger resulted in death and disability.  

So you believe that a black man carrying a rifle could have walked toward those police vehicles with people pointing and shouting that he shot some people ... and the police would have just let him walk by? The police said in testimony that the (black in your scenario) guy sometimes had his hands "up" but other times put his hands on the weapon as he approached and he wasn't following their commands.  You are probably right.  The police might have simply shot him and his family would have gotten a settlement. 

He's done pretty well already.  Lots of people seem interested in giving him money. There was some reporting earlier about police groups even donating to causes like his.  

National laws supersede Wisconsin State Law.  The area was under attack by domestic terrorists from the Alt-Left and he had his constitutional right to act as militia to defend the country.

He can face as many charges as he wants.  Does that mean he is guilty of anything?  That is the point of a trial......

If he was a black man he would be having monuments erected in his honor.  Look at lifelong criminal George Floyd known for beating pregnant women and attacked a police officer last year while high on drugs.  HE now has statues everywhere.  Look at the armed black militia pointing assault rifles at people outside of Stone Mountain in GA last year.  Where is their trial?  This is what is known as black privilege.

I am glad he is doing well.  The guy deserves it for standing up for his country while its under attack by radicals.  People have had enough of hatred, terror, and fascism., We must rise up and resist.

 

 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA.

Donald Trump acknowledged the danger that Kyle was in that day.  He would have been killed if he didn't act so bravely.

https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2020/08/31/donald-trump-kyle-rittenhouse-was-big-trouble-when-rioters-attacked-him/

“He was trying to get away from them, I guess, it looks like and he fell and then they very violently attacked him,” Trump said.

Rittenhouse was charged by prosecutors with first-degree reckless homicide and first-degree intentional homicide last week as three people were shot during the altercation.

“I guess he was in very big trouble, he probably would have been killed, but it’s under investigation,” Trump said.

 

 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, CRNAbro said:

National laws supersede Wisconsin State Law.  The area was under attack by domestic terrorists from the Alt-Left and he had his constitutional right to act as militia to defend the country.

Which national law are you talking about? 

 

1 hour ago, CRNAbro said:

He can face as many charges as he wants.  Does that mean he is guilty of anything?  That is the point of a trial......

Captain Obvious, are you here to talk about the trial?

 

1 hour ago, CRNAbro said:

This is what is known as black privilege.

This ^^ is what is known as baloney.  

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, CRNAbro said:

Donald Trump acknowledged the danger that Kyle was in that day.  He would have been killed if he didn't act so bravely.

https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2020/08/31/donald-trump-kyle-rittenhouse-was-big-trouble-when-rioters-attacked-him/

“He was trying to get away from them, I guess, it looks like and he fell and then they very violently attacked him,” Trump said.

Rittenhouse was charged by prosecutors with first-degree reckless homicide and first-degree intentional homicide last week as three people were shot during the altercation.

“I guess he was in very big trouble, he probably would have been killed, but it’s under investigation,” Trump said.

 

 

You thought that was an important addition to a thread about a trial. I guess I know what to expect in way of "discussion" from you. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
4 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:
1 hour ago, CRNAbro said:

National laws supersede Wisconsin State Law.  The area was under attack by domestic terrorists from the Alt-Left and he had his constitutional right to act as militia to defend the country.

Which national law are you talking about? 

[...]

And, I would be interested in hearing more about this constitutional right to "act as militia."

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion