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? 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

2 minutes ago, Beerman said:

The first shooting, a shot was fired in the air by one of the men chasing Rittinhouse, 

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?

 

4 minutes ago, Beerman said:

 

If he hadn't taken the action he did, I believe he would be the one who ended up dead.

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

[Cclm, LPN]

33 minutes 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. 

This is off topic...kind of.....

Do you view "unarmed men" who are killed by police because they are resisting

37 minutes 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. 

If all of the stupid idiots that were there that night the two would be alive and Rittenhouse would not be on trial. 

[toomuchbaloney]

10 hours ago, Cclm said:

Do you view "unarmed men" who are killed by police because they are resisting

Do I view them as what?

 

10 hours ago, Cclm said:

If all of the stupid idiots that were there that night the two would be alive and Rittenhouse would not be on trial. 

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

 

[Beerman, BSN]

3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

That was part of the prosecution's witness testimony or evidence, that the fellow was chasing Rittenhouse?

Yes, that is what the witness testified to.

3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

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

Probably not.  Obviously.

 

[heron, ASN, RN]

8 hours ago, Cclm said:

Do not talk about purple hair!! They will call you a "queer hater"!! And soon a nazi white supremacist because you have a different opinion. It doesn't matter if you are not even white! 

There it is! That theoretical identity that excuses and justifies all … Called up the reinforcements, did you?

Race card and victim card in the same post! You‘ve been practicing, I can tell.

 

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Yes, that is what the witness testified to.

Probably not.  Obviously.

 

The videographer? Didn't he say that the single shot came from behind him? He also said that lots of people were moving in the same direction Rittenhouse was traveling, right?

Yeah...the answer seemed so obvious I was kind of surprised by the question. 

 

[MunoRN, RN]

On 11/6/2021 at 5:28 PM, Beerman said:

I hadn't followed it to closely until this week.  If you view all the videos and heard the witnesses, who btw are prosecution witnesses, it's obvious it was shooting in self-defense.

It's unethical to prosecute someone for charges they clearly are not guilty of.

I agree that each and every shot fired by Rittenhouse is justifiable as self-defense.  I could see some criticism of him being a bit quick with the trigger if we were talking about just a single aggressor, but in the setting of an angry mob each incident was reasonably considered to be potentially life threatening.

But as far as I can tell, only one of the charges relies on the idea that he didn't have a self-defense justification.

The others are based on the premise that it was his recklessness and negligence that resulted in him being in the situation where he had to defend himself with potentially lethal force.

As an example (not intended to actually compare anyone to dogs) say you're walking through a parking lot and you see a truck with dogs in the back.  The dogs are clearly unfriendly, and there are signs all over they truck that warn you to stay away from the dogs because they're dangerous.  You decide to lean into the back of the truck and one of the dogs grabs you by the throat, so you shoot it because otherwise it's going to probably kill you.  Regardless of whether you were justified by defending yourself you it's still your fault the dog is dead, it's dead because of your negligence and recklessness.

[MunoRN, RN]

9 hours 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.

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.

 

 

The Constitution includes the right to "a well regulated militia", a 17 year walking around with a rifle playing Cop during a riot is not a "well regulated militia".  

[toomuchbaloney]

49 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I agree that each and every shot fired by Rittenhouse is justifiable as self-defense.  I could see some criticism of him being a bit quick with the trigger if we were talking about just a single aggressor, but in the setting of an angry mob each incident was reasonably considered to be potentially life threatening.

But as far as I can tell, only one of the charges relies on the idea that he didn't have a self-defense justification.

The others are based on the premise that it was his recklessness and negligence that resulted in him being in the situation where he had to defend himself with potentially lethal force.

As an example (not intended to actually compare anyone to dogs) say you're walking through a parking lot and you see a truck with dogs in the back.  The dogs are clearly unfriendly, and there are signs all over they truck that warn you to stay away from the dogs because they're dangerous.  You decide to lean into the back of the truck and one of the dogs grabs you by the throat, so you shoot it because otherwise it's going to probably kill you.  Regardless of whether you were justified by defending yourself you it's still your fault the dog is dead, it's dead because of your negligence and recklessness.

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? 

[Beerman, BSN]

4 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The videographer? Didn't he say that the single shot came from behind him? He also said that lots of people were moving in the same direction Rittenhouse was traveling, right?

Yeah...the answer seemed so obvious I was kind of surprised by the question. 

 

Yes.  The gunshot cane from behind. 

He said Rosenbaugh caught up to him, and reached for the gun. 

The prosecutor tried to do some damage control and asked if maybe he fell forward.  The witness testified that no, he was reaching for the gun.

 

[toomuchbaloney]

43 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Yes.  The gunshot cane from behind. 

He said Rosenbaugh caught up to him, and reached for the gun. 

The prosecutor tried to do some damage control and asked if maybe he fell forward.  The witness testified that no, he was reaching for the gun.

 

Yeah...that witness definitely believed that Rosenbaum was reaching for the gun.  Yeah he asked if maybe he was already falling.  Like maybe the fellow had lost his balance and wasn't lunging but was falling forward.  That may be related to where Rosenbaum's wounds were located.  

[Cclm, LPN]

10 hours ago, heron said:

There it is! That theoretical identity that excuses and justifies all … Called up the reinforcements, did you?

Race card and victim card in the same post! You‘ve been practicing, I can tell.

 

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. 

What does "theoretical identity" mean exactly? 

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. You might mistake me calling out hypocrisy as self victimization . I do not play the "race card". That is a card for Demorats. 

Can't pass a bill....racism.... Lose an election....racism .Eventhough a black woman also won. Shes a white supremacist. Whitness, white supremacy bla bla bla. Who plays the race card? 

I mean am I lying?