Hmm, we’ll see

In making his case for self-defense on the witness stand, Rittenhouse said that Rosenbaum chased him down and made a grab for his rifle — testimony largely corroborated by video and some of the prosecution’s own witnesses.

As for Huber, he was gunned down after he was seen on video hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard. And Grosskreutz admitted he had his own gun pointed at Rittenhouse when he was shot.

105 thoughts on “Hmm, we’ll see”

  1. The BBC, of course, has been even-handed in its coverage of the case:

    “Earlier on Monday, defence attorneys successfully argued that Wisconsin law could be interpreted to allow him to possess the firearm….”

    ‘Could be interpreted’ sounds like a technicality. My understanding is that the law related to length of barrel, Rittenhouse’s barrel was over the required length. His possession was legal. No ‘could be interpreted’ about it.

    “the assistant district attorney for Kenosha – questioned why Mr Rittenhouse broke curfew in a city he did not live in and “pretended to guard” people and property he was not familiar with.”

    Might have been even-handed of the BBC to give the response to that questioning. Rittenhouse’s dad lived in Kenosha.

    My favourite line from the prosecutor was the bewildering claim that “if you bring a gun to the scene, you lose the right to use it in self-defence”.

    If Rittenhouse is acquitted, they think he’s got a lot of defamation lawsuits he could file – including one on a certain Mr Biden.

  2. Having watched some of the courtroom footage, the prosecution argument is riddled with sophistry. The judge was right to call the prosecutor out for trying to poison the jury. The prima facie evidence leans to self defence.

  3. Can they come to a compromise whereby he’s found guilty of a lesser charge?

    On a case-by-case basis he’s innocent, but as Oscar Wilde might have said, “to shoot one rioter may be regarded as misfortune; to shoot three looks like carelessness”.

  4. “As for Huber, he was gunned down after he was seen on video hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard. And Grosskreutz admitted he had his own gun pointed at Rittenhouse when he was shot.”

    As one of Larry Niven’s laws state : “Don’t throw shit at an armed man”
    with the useful corollary, “Don’t stand next to someone throwing shit at an armed man”. Always good advice.

  5. “to shoot one rioter may be regarded as misfortune; to shoot three looks like carelessness”.

    Yeah, there were hundreds there and he had thirty rounds; kid was negligent.

    And that joke does point to self defence being the motive. Despite multiple opportunities (chased, kicked, bowled over, etc.) he didn’t shoot anyone not directly threatening him. Even the guy with the gun didn’t get shot until he actually pointed it at Rittenhouse.
    .

    The judge was right to call the prosecutor out for trying to poison the jury.

    Still might have done the job, though. Lots of people are slagging the prosecutor for incompetence but you have to wait for the verdict to conclude that. Pointing the gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger might seem insane, but those peeps are the ones that need to be persuaded and that sort of melodrama might work.

  6. I’ve no idea who any of these people are which is one of the benefits of steering clear of broadcast and print media. Do these people speak German amongst themselves?

  7. “Rittenhouse’s barrel was over the required length. ” If I remember rightly there was a case where the FBI had sawn a bit off a barrel so that the defendant was in trouble. Was it Ruby Ridge or one of their other abominations?

  8. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ Pointing the gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger might seem insane,”

    Did he clear the weapon when he picked it up and demonstrate to everyone’s satisfaction that it was unloaded? If not that’s negligence.

    Even doing that you should never point a gun directly at people, you don’t know how they will react.

  9. @BiND,

    It was once put to me when I was a young teenager at an Army exhibition and holding a bazooka (which is basically a thin metal tube – obviously lacking the projectile) that ‘you don’t point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to kill – even that!’ Nearly 60 years later, I haven’t forgotten.

  10. Still might have done the job, though. Lots of people are slagging the prosecutor for incompetence but you have to wait for the verdict to conclude that.

    I would suggest that it would create grounds for an appeal should he be found guilty.

  11. Bloke in North Korea (Germany Province)

    “My understanding is that the law related to length of barrel, Rittenhouse’s barrel was over the required length.”

    Oh you haven’t been watching the propaganda lessons the last 2 years.

    “Wisconsin laws require guns to have a particular barrel length. Rittenhouse’s gun exceeded this barrel length.”

    All you have to leave out is that the specification is a minimum, not a maximum.

  12. I believe it was Allen Dershowitz, rather famous attorney (and liberal) who noted in the Trayvon Martin case that there were only 2 relevant questions:

    Who started the fight?

    Who was on top when the shot was fired? (Trayvon was, and he was pounding George Zimmerman’s head against the pavement)

    Once someone threatens you, if you have reason to fear death or serious bodily injury you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself.

    The usual suspects have been flinging everything they can think of at the wall hoping something will stick here. The jury should have been done in an hour.

  13. @dearieme
    Ruby Ridge – IIRC a government informer persistently badgered Randy Weaver to supply him with a sawn off shotgun, and eventually Weaver caved. This gave the feds cause to raid his home, leading to the deaths of his wife and son.

    @BIND
    The prosecutor has demonstrated very little knowledge of firearms, so to no-one’s surprise he didn’t clear the rifle before pointing it at the jury without any trigger discipline. He apparently (I’ve learned from Tim Pool vids) asked someone else whether the weapon was clear.

  14. The other rule of gun safety is: a gun is always loaded, even when it’s not loaded.

    Even if you’ve never handled a gun, who hasn’t picked up a power drill and had it set off?

  15. The media reporting is so biased even some of the media has sheepishly been forced to report how biased and factually incorrect it is

  16. ‘Trayvon was, and he was pounding George Zimmerman’s head against the pavement)’

    Thanks for the info Esteban. I’ve actually been inspired to at least look at the Wiki article.

    All I noticed in the Oz media when this occurred was that a wicked white had murdered an unarmed black boy.

  17. Harry Haddock's Ghost

    All I noticed in the Oz media when this occurred was that a wicked white had murdered an unarmed black boy.

    Nope. He is Hispanic and the guys he shot were white, like most ANTIFA / BLM types.

  18. The jury should have been done in an hour.

    But they weren’t (and have now retired for the night). So the Jury’s experience of the trial is somewhat different to ours. And we don’t count.

  19. I’ve been listening to almost the whole trial in the background while working from home.

    I could write a novel about how ignorant of the law and common sense the prosecution, media, politicians and pro-conviction armchair attorneys are. At least the prosecution lawyers have the excuse that it’s their job to convict Kyle. Everyone else is just trying to get a tally on their side of the scoreboard. Once you see just a fraction of the evidence (unedited and unfiltered by the news media) and learn just a little bit about the law and basic gun safety, you see how sick, disgusting and depraved some people are. Only a pure unambiguous racist would see a white boy kill three white men and say it’s about racism. Only someone who thinks The Matrix showed an accurate depiction of firearm use would say Kyle had an “advantage” because his gun is bigger than the other gun. Throughout this entire thing, the only arguments I hear from the pro-conviction camp are:

    1. I hate Kyle because he’s a straight white male who doesn’t hate the same people I hate.

    2. I believe everything the prosecution and media say, even after it’s debunked and the charges are dropped, and after the prosecution’s own witnesses debunked themselves. I also repeat what these people are saying, so I can be equally wrong along with them.

    3. I’m going to judge this case based on what I FEEL the law SHOULD be, not what it is.

    4. I want to be able to loot, commit arson, vandalize and hospitalize random people without facing consequences.

    5. I don’t understand what guns are or how they work, but I want to tell you what the gun laws are anyway.

    6. You’re supposed to look at the race or politics of the people involved, do the sloppy math in your head, ignore any raw footage of the incident or trial, riot and destroy your city that wasn’t even the location of the incident, physically harm people who weren’t even involved, and then be utterly surprised when the defendant is acquitted and blame it on systemic racism. Everyone knows that’s how it works. I still believe Mike Brown had his hands up when he was shot.

    7. I base my morality on what Don Lemon and Joy Reid said within the hour, not on any kind of deeply held principles. Forming a personality is too much work.

    8. These videos and still shots keep disproving my theories, but I think of this gravely serious issue as a football game, and I need my team to win. If my side looks bad, that means Tucker Carlson and the Trumpsters win, and that’s worse than sending a 17-year-old kid to prison for life after defending himself from murderous thugs. I have to link my identity with one of these groups, because otherwise I’d have to form a personality, and that’s too much work.

    9. I make assumptions about Kyle and the people representing him based on their physical appearance, because white men who aren’t morbidly obese or a skinny rat-faced cuck must be just like those jocks who picked on me in high school. I like to use the same evidence the movie Idiocracy used in the courtroom scene: “Just look at him, your honor.”

    10. People will be mad at me if I don’t say Kyle is guilty. I would let my own mother go to prison if I was afraid of polite society hating me.

    11. Kyle was a wannabe tough guy for taking precautions and surviving a riot. I’m better than him, because I let people beat the shit out of me instead of defending myself. I’ll let someone sodomize me with a broomstick if it makes me look less like an uneducated brute. That’s how sophisticated I am.

    12. It’s more important for me to feel like one of those cool contrarian revolutionaries who mock religious people and think they’re the first ones to ever propose abolishing capitalism or taking a criminal’s side in an ethical argument. Respecting the life of a teenager who did more for other people in one day than I have in my entire life is just so lame and cliché.

    13. I think the average human has a bird’s eye view of their surroundings, and the world is a well-controlled experiment, where you can take exact measurements of an attacker’s intentions and fine movements within a matter of nanoseconds. There’s no such thing as uneven lighting, pattern-forming based on an aggressor’s previous behavior, or adrenaline. Kyle should have seen that Joseph Rosenbaum wasn’t going to take his gun, that there was an opening where he could’ve escaped from the chase without having to shoot, that Anthony Huber wasn’t actually going to knock him out with a skateboard, that Gaige Grosskreutz was just going to turn Kyle into the police (which he was already doing himself), that the angry mob running after him was simply trying to get Kyle to answer a few friendly questions. When you’re in danger of losing your life, you need to keep tabs on whether the gun is being pointed at your face on purpose or by accident. You might judge incorrectly or take too long to make a decision, but I’d rather get shot and die than make such a rash character judgment about the person pointing a gun at my face. That’s just rude. Just like those Americans who survived the sinking of the Titanic.

    So excuse me for not grabbing a pitchfork and a torch with the rest of the townsfolk.

  20. The fact that the jury is taking so long to deliberate tells you, at the very least, that it’s not a clear murder. They have doubts on at least some of the charges. They also asked the judge, 45 minutes into deliberations, to get a copy of the precise jury instructions for every single juror. That means they are going line by line to make sure everything matches up with the criteria before they convict Kyle of anything at all.

    Also, keep in mind the protests and the threats that people involved with this trial are getting. If any pissed off AntiFa/BLM supporters find out who the jurors are, they could be attacked for acquitting Kyle. It still shouldn’t matter, because they have the life of a teenager in their hands (even life in prison carries with it the threat of other prison inmates), but there are unfortunately past cases where the jury is intimidated into an unjust verdict.

    The bad news for Kyle, is it’s more time for him to be worrying. The good news is, the jury is taking their time and seeing if there’s any way the prosecution got rid of that “reasonable doubt.” And maybe a long deliberation is just a way to cover their asses as well, instead of giving the appearance of a rush to verdict, which could be perceived as bias.

    If there’s a situation where the jury completely ignores instructions and it’s clear they didn’t pay attention to the evidence, then the judge can always overrule their decision. It’s very rare and likely difficult, but can be done if absolutely neccessary.

  21. The BLM protestors standing outside the courthouse aren’t really helping their cause. They’re just a constant reminder to the jury of the type of intimidation and violence their comrades have been bringing to their city. And that will just remind the jury of the entire reason why Kyle was justified in defending himself with deadly force.

    Add to that all of the National Guardsmen the Wisconsin governor is FINALLY calling in to keep the town safe, and now the jurors will be reminded of the fact that the police were told to stand down last year, which justified Kyle’s presence at the riots to begin with.

    So…keep protesting, I guess?

  22. @Tim W
    Expecting impartial reporting from BBC is preposterous

    @Longrider
    +1 Hannity, Tucker etc gave a good review of prosecution, judge, msm etc

    Best bit was prosecution witness:
    “After we attacked Rittenhouse, he was lying on ground. I walked up and held gun in both hands pointed at him….then he shot me” …and then Rittenhouse ran to police [sitting in their cars] seeking safety
    https://youtu.be/bYWMoLYEFBY?t=355

    Left mob: Jurors harassed & threatened outside court and judge receives death threats

    Video:
    Tucker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykxlfcErSYs
    Hannity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZXziaZq9gQ

    @Andrew M
    “Can they come to a compromise whereby he’s found guilty of a lesser charge?”

    That’s the way it may be going, not for justice; but in hope it will prevent more riots

  23. The consensus seems to be he ought to be acquitted because he was in danger at the time he fired, but he was pretty damn stupid for getting himself into that situation. For his next trip he might go to a Hell’s Angels’ bar and try kicking a bike over.

  24. ” . . . Rittenhouse said that Rosenbaum chased him down and made a grab for his rifle . . . “

    This is Rittenhouse’s biggest vulnerability in terms of the charges. He doesn’t say that Rosenbaum was directly, at that second, a threat to him – which is what is required for a self-defense defense. Indeed, if Rosenbaum succeeded in grabbing away the gun, they would simply be in the same position they were in to start, but reversed. And so, if Rittenhouse wasn’t a direct threat to Rosenbaum in the beginning simply because he was holding a gun, Rosenbaum wouldn’t be a direct threat to Rittenhouse if he grabbed the gun away simply because HE was holding a gun. They’re going to have to believe that Rosenbaum was not just grabbing for the gun, but was clearly intent on using it on Rittenhouse if he got it. And that’s a high burden, especially for a jury that has some impetus to find SOME guilt.

  25. The consensus seems to be he ought to be acquitted because he was in danger at the time he fired, but he was pretty damn stupid for getting himself into that situation.

    He shouldn’t have been wearing that skimpy skirt. He was just begging to be raped.

  26. “Can they come to a compromise whereby he’s found guilty of a lesser charge?”
    Not according to the law. That Kyle shot these people is not disputed. The issue is whether a self defence argument stands. If it does, it covers all lesser shooting offences too.

    But I don’t think the law has much to do with this case.

    The jury will rule “Guilty” ‘cos the crowd outside are ready with tyre necklaces & petrol for the full Mandela experience for any juror foolish enough to oppose the mob. And from the Mexican gang experience, the trick is to go after the families, then get them to make a phone call to the target juror/policeman etc. Just to ensure they do what they are told.

    However, it looks as if even the prosecution are setting this up for a dismissal with prejudice.
    If not, then the message to all gun holders is: shoot early and shoot often, as the law no longer applies.

  27. They’re going to have to believe that Rosenbaum was not just grabbing for the gun, but was clearly intent on using it on Rittenhouse if he got it.

    No, to acquit they’ll have to believe that Rittenhouse reasonably believed his attacker would use the gun. This was the issue in the George Zimmerman trial; he claimed that Trayvon Martin was trying to get his gun off him and he believed his life was in danger.

    . . . especially for a jury that has some impetus to find SOME guilt.

    Yes, contrary to some comments above, I suspect the jury is looking for ways to convict rather than ways to acquit.

  28. Esteban wrote:

    ‘Once someone threatens you, if you have reason to fear death or serious bodily injury you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself.”

    Well, not quite. In most US states, more-or-less, if you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, you are justified to use that reasonable amount of force, up to and including deadly force, that is reasonable to prevent the injury or death.

    What that means, in many cases, is that you have to persuade (first) a prosecutor and (if you can’t persuade them) then (second) a petit jury that a) your fear was ‘reasonable’ and that you were therefore justified to use force and b) the amount of force you used was ‘reasonable’ and therefore justified.

    That’s what’s happening to Mr Rittenhouse.

    Exactly as bobby b. notes, the only serious problem for the defense is the case of Mr Rosenbaum, who attacked Mr Rittenhouse with open hands. The other two attacked him and/or threatened him with deadly weapons, there shouldn’t be much problem in proving justification.

    All this ignores the raging social and political issues swirling around the case. Since virtually-none of this has any basis in reason, there’s little reasonable comment that can be made. adpoif. . . . lists all of this quie nicely.

    llater,

    llamas

  29. @KyleT: “a government informer persistently badgered Randy Weaver to supply him with a sawn off shotgun, and eventually Weaver caved”

    Ah but the defence argued that the barrel was of legal length when Weaver handed it over and that it was the Feds who shortened it so that it became illegal. Alas, that sounds all too plausible.

  30. T

    “For his next trip he might go to a Hell’s Angels’ bar and try kicking a bike over.”

    So you haven’t watched any of the trial at all?

    Rittenhouse is on video at several instances that evening DE-escalating confrontations that the rioters were trying to start. He was on the ground, rather than on the roof, because he was offering help as a medic. You may wish to quibble about his quals, but he is undoubtedly doing exactly that. At every possible turn he was seen to back away or de-escalate or both.

    A more apt analogy would be he went to the Hell’s Angels bar and went to get a dust pan and brush after Rosenbaum came in and swept all the glasses off the bar. That’s a better analogy for why he was chased down by Rosenbaum.

  31. All this shows is that the US is screwed. How many low profile cases have innocent people been jailed for long periods. That is what happens when you start to define law as in it’s only self defence if you fear for your life or the attacker is unarmed.

  32. The prosecution case rests on the city, and others, burning down if the ‘wrong’ verdict is returned. You can have the most incompetent prosecutor in the world and it makes no difference.

  33. Dennis, On The Front Lines Fightin' Them Chlorinated Chickens

    Dennis’ fearless prediction: Hung jury, followed by retrial, followed by acquittal.

    From what I have seen, it seems clear that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

    HOWEVER, I have absolutely no sympathy for him, and never will. You have to be one dumb motherfucker to decide to voluntarily show up at a riot with a gun. If he’d stayed home – or at least far away from the riot – none of this would have happened. If he is now going through Hell, well, he worked hard to get there… no one was pushing him in that direction.

    As a gun owner who carries, nothing pisses me off like a moron with a gun, and that’s exactly what Rittenhouse was.

  34. Dennis: genuine question. If you are out & about minding your own business and carrying, have you ever had to draw it in self defence or to defend someone else? Here in the UK there haven’t been handguns in general use for getting on for a century, except for TPTB and criminals, so the concept is a bit foreign.

    In all the trips I’ve made to the US I’ve never seen anyone with a gun except cops, though in several places I’ve seen ‘No Firearms’ signs.

  35. Dennis, He Who Knows The Difference Between A Machine Gun And A Semi-Automatic Rifle

    I have never had to present arms. And part of that is due to the fact that I’ve learned situational awareness. For the last 20+ years I’ve spent a fair whack of time in really rough neighborhoods, and I think one of the reasons I’ve never had to present arms is that I’ve learned to pay attention to my surroundings and avoid potential situations where I might end up in some trouble.

    There are lots of people who concealed carry. If it is done right, you’d never be able to tell. For example, I have a holster for my Beretta Tomcat that, when put in a pants pocket, prints exactly like a cell phone. That’s 7 rounds of .32acp that you’d think was my iPhone.

  36. “I’ve learned to pay attention to my surroundings and avoid potential situations where I might end up in some trouble.”

    Aye there’s the rub. KR was lured into the ambush by Zaminski, then cornered. KR had been trying to get back Car Source 3 but was prevented from doing so by, wait for it, the Police.

  37. You have to be one dumb motherfucker to decide to voluntarily show up at a riot with a gun.

    I dunno tho. If 5000 dumb mutherfuckers voluntarily showed up at a riot with guns then there probably wouldn’t be a riot. Preferably the dumb motherfuckers should be the empowered authorities being paid to protect life and property, but if they’ve made the decision to stay safely far away from the riot then it seems reasonable if the dumb mutherfucking people turn out and protect themselves.

    That situation is basically what the guns are for because, as the old saying goes, when seconds count the police are sat in their cars and stations under orders not to interfere with politically-approved, murderous commie bastard thugs running amok.

    Otherwise, gun-owners are just twatty poseurs with a false sense of security.

  38. Dennis, Pointing Out The Obvious

    There is no “rub”.

    KR voluntarily inserted himself into an area where there was a riot in progress. He had no reason to be there in the first place, much less be there with a gun in hand. If he’d stayed away – the obvious course of action for any sane individual – two people would be alive today and he wouldn’t be in the position he is in.

    He ended up shooting two people to death because he thought showing up at a riot with a gun was a good idea, and then went out of his way to do so.

  39. Dennis, Pointing Out The Obvious, Yet Again

    If 5000 dumb mutherfuckers voluntarily showed up at a riot with guns then there probably wouldn’t be a riot.

    Seriously? What you’d have is a bloodbath, and most likely many innocent dead. 5,000 dumb motherfuckers are just that… 5,000 dumb motherfuckers.

    Don’t overlook the obvious.

  40. Dennis, Bullshit Detector

    That situation is basically what the guns are for because, as the old saying goes, when seconds count the police are sat in their cars and stations under orders not to interfere with politically-approved, murderous commie bastard thugs running amok.

    Otherwise, gun-owners are just twatty poseurs with a false sense of security.

    Well said, Mr. Ecks.

    You’re exactly the sort who shouldn’t handle a gun under any circumstance.

  41. The prosecution, not the defense, has the burden of proof. The main argument the jury has to focus on in this trial, as is the case in any other trial, is whether Kyle is guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    In other words, is there any possibility that the defense is correct. Is there any possibility that Kyle felt he was going to die if he didn’t shoot those three people? If you put yourself in his shoes, would you have felt the need to shoot Rosenbaum, “jump-kick man,” Huber and Grosskreutz? If you watch all of the (unedited) video footage and listen to any testimony that is corroborated by the evidence, you would have to be nuts to just sit there on the ground, or in the corner of a car lot while people assault you and grab for your gun, and NOT defend yourself.

    And if you believe the prosecution when they say “He could’ve just used his fists,” then you do not understand the basics of gun safety or how to act around firearms in general. And it’s okay to be ignorant–you can’t know everything about everything. But it’s not okay to be arrogant or try to ruin a kid’s life when you’re ignorant.

    Just as the prosecution (and the judge) have said, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. In the same way, ignorance of guns and how to behave around them is no excuse for “accidentally” pointing your pistol at a teenager with an AR-15, or trying to wrestle the rifle away from him. All three of those bullet recipients should not have been surprised at all that they were shot. It was a risk that they all accepted willingly. Just as you would be accepting the risk of getting hit by a car when you run into oncoming traffic, or the risk of electrocution when you touch a security fence with a “high voltage” sign.

  42. Would Dennis like to explain further?
    Is it only when the mob has set fire to your business, your home and your family, that you are allowed to respond?
    If it’s your neighbours getting the torch, then no problem?
    This was the 3rd night of rioting, arson and looting, and the police were standing by watching, totally idle.
    Seems to me half the state-hate is because KR was doing what the authorities didn’t dare to.

  43. Dennis, A Vast Reservior of Toxic Masculinity

    In other words, is there any possibility that the defense is correct. Is there any possibility that Kyle felt he was going to die if he didn’t shoot those three people? If you put yourself in his shoes, would you have felt the need to shoot Rosenbaum, “jump-kick man,” Huber and Grosskreutz? If you watch all of the (unedited) video footage and listen to any testimony that is corroborated by the evidence, you would have to be nuts to just sit there on the ground, or in the corner of a car lot while people assault you and grab for your gun, and NOT defend yourself.

    All of which missed the essential fact of the matter: KR put himself there voluntarily. With a gun. He had no reason to be there. He wasn’t law enforcement. He wasn’t deputized. He had no training (military, law enforcement, etc.) to handle the situation he, and he alone, created.

    The fact that you are in possession of a firearm does not confer law enforcement duties, responsibilities or prerogatives. That seems to be the part that KR and his supporters seem to be missing.

    The sole justification of carrying a firearm is self-defense. SELF-DEFENSE. That means one thing and one thing only: Ending the threat. That means if someone threatens you, you present arms, and they run away… well, you’ve done your job. You don’t chase, you don’t shoot, you don’t do anything other than call the police on your cell phone. YOUR JOB IS DONE. Using a firearm in self-defense is ALWAYS a last resort if you are defending yourself properly. But none of that carries water if decide to inject yourself into a situation where real danger is present without the justification of protecting yourself or those with you.

    KR picked up a rifle, got in his car, AND DROVE TO A RIOT.

  44. Dennis, Who's Starting To Understand Why Wogs Aren't Allowed To Have Guns

    For the benefit of Tim, I repeat:

    The sole justification of carrying a firearm is self-defense. SELF-DEFENSE. That means one thing and one thing only: Ending the threat. That means if someone threatens you, you present arms, and they run away… well, you’ve done your job. You don’t chase, you don’t shoot, you don’t do anything other than call the police on your cell phone. YOUR JOB IS DONE. Using a firearm in self-defense is ALWAYS a last resort if you are defending yourself properly. But none of that carries water if decide to inject yourself into a situation where real danger is present without the justification of protecting yourself or those with you.

    KR picked up a rifle, got in his car, AND DROVE TO A RIOT.

    KR wasn’t threatened until he went out of his way to put himself in harm’s way. That cannot be rationalized away with hypotheticals.

  45. Dennis,
    You haven’t been watching this trial at all.

    He did not insert himself into a riot. He got to Kenosha MUCH earlier that day and spent the afternoon clearing grafitti off the school. He was there, but he was there long before the riot.

    He spent the evening backing AWAY from trouble – it’s all on the video and all in evidence presented to court BY THE STATE’S WITNESSES.

    “That means if someone threatens you, you present arms, and they run away… well, you’ve done your job. You don’t chase, you don’t shoot, you don’t do anything other than call the police on your cell phone. YOUR JOB IS DONE. ”

    And he did this. It’s on the video. The fact that you feel you have to raise this and put it in caps shows you have not watched the trial.

  46. The people who think “He shouldn’t have been there” are completely ignorant of American law. Kyle had just as much right to be there, even with a gun, as anyone else who was present. That is why the curfew charge was dismissed, as well as the underage possession of a firearm charge. Kyle was within the confines of the law, and the only real debate in this case has been the right to self-defense.

    If you were paying any attention at all to the facts and chronology of the case, Kenosha WI was being set on fire several nights in a row before Kyle ever showed up. Just the Car Source alone faced $1.5 million of damage in one of those nights. The entire reason Rosenbaum started chasing Kyle was because he put out a dumpster fire in the middle of the street. He did absolutely nothing to provoke anyone. The AntiFa rioters simply didn’t want their destruction and violence to be sabotaged. I have a former college friend who is now an AntiFa member, so I know what kinds of people they are.

    And this activity was not just happening in Kenosha, but all over the country, especially in large cities. I live in NYC and even the high-end stores on 5th Avenue had hired their own armed guards and boarded up all of their windows.

    “Why didn’t he call the police?” There virtually weren’t any police to call. In the U.S. at this time (and arguably still), police departments were being told to stand down and let the rioters riot by mayors and governors across the country, including in Wisconsin. In fact, now Governor Evers (same governor at the time of the Rittenhouse incident) is this time calling in the National Guard. He is being mocked in the media for FINALLY taking Trump’s advice that was given over a year ago. What’s even more frustrating is that last year’s shenanigans were purely political. Democrats hated Trump more than they cared about the safety of their own constituents.

    Kyle lived around 15 minutes away from Kenosha. He lived closer than most of the demonstrators that night, and closer than many of the men who were shot. Kyle worked in Kenosha and his own father lived in town. It’s the equivalent of a New Yorker crossing the bridge to work in Jersey City. He had just as much connection, and just as much right to be there as anyone else.

    So when your community is being burned down, and the police are not allowed to respond unless someone is shot (at which point you’re getting involved a bit late), in America that is a completely reasonable and necessary time to fill in the security gaps. And how did Kyle do that? By cleaning graffiti and putting out fires. The only time his rifle even entered the equation was when he was threatened. 100% of the people who didn’t threaten Kyle are alive and completely unscathed today.

    Those mocking some stereotype of a “wannabe tough guy vigilante” are people I don’t want around me during a natural disaster or any stressful situation. You can feel better than me and drown in third class on the Titanic for all I care. I’m getting on a godforsaken lifeboat, even if I have to look like a fool while I’m doing it, thank you very much.

    The real wannabe tough guy vigilante was the unarmed mentally ill ex-convict who thought he could charge at a teenager with an AR-15 and live. There was also the unarmed skateboarder who thought he could knock out a teenager and pull the rifle away before getting shot with an AR-15. And then there was the guy who was armed with a pistol, but thought he could knock the AR-15 to the side with his karate chop motion, just like in the movies. All three men would have been alive and unharmed if they had just called the police instead (which also would have been uneventful, as Kyle was already going toward the police). But they were wannabe vigilantes who thought they were defending the world from a reincarnation of Hitler himself. How’s that for delusional? Kyle was part of the line of defense that the proper authorities should have been. His new name is Kyle Cleaninghouse.

  47. Dennis, Offender of Krauts, Frogs and other Wogs

    I’ll give you wogs credit where credit is due: You’re every bit as blood thirsty as any septic could ever want to be. The fact that you don’t care for the people who KR shot doesn’t justify KR shooting them, and that really is what this is about, isn’t it? Defending a guy who killed the sort of people you don’t care for…

  48. There’s little doubt the police weren’t “dumb motherfuckers”. They stayed out of the way & let the rioters trash the town. Or isn’t that what you meant, Dennis?

  49. Dennis, Pointing Out The Obvious

    And who the fuck takes a semi-automatic rifle with them to do community service?

    The fact that he felt the need to arm himself is proof positive that he knew there was a distinct possibility that he would be putting himself in harm’s way.

  50. ” The fact that you don’t care for the people who KR shot doesn’t justify KR shooting them”
    Correct. 100%. Totally agree.

    “and that really is what this is about, isn’t it? Defending a guy who killed the sort of people you don’t care for…”

    No. It’s not. It’s that this is an obviously clear cut case of self defence. If Rittenhouse is convicted, you can kiss goodbye to any form of self defence.

    The prosecution even closed with the line “sometimes you just have to take your beating”.

    That you haven’t conceded that, yes, there is ample video evidence of KR doing exactly what you suggest he should do – back away, show rifle, give attacker a chance to back off etc – shows you are just talking shite here.

    Have you watched the trial? If you haven’t, you will almost certainly be wildly misinformed about what happened.

  51. Dennis: Oppressor, Warmonger, Capitalist and Consumer of Petroleum Products

    There’s little doubt the police weren’t “dumb motherfuckers”. They stayed out of the way & let the rioters trash the town.

    You all seem to assume that having a heavily armed police contingent disperse the rioters by force would have produced a better result. Do you have anything by way of evidence to support that contention? I’m not saying standing by and watching is the preferred choice of Ol’ Dennis, I’m just saying that you guys seem to be assuming that a violent clash between rioters and police would have been more successful (an outcome none of you have bothered to define) than letting the riot run its course.

    Anyone have enough of a (USA) police background to know what accepted doctrine is for dealing with riots? And why that doctrine is preferred?

  52. Dennis, One of Joe's Neanderthals

    It’s that this is an obviously clear cut case of self defence.

    I agree. In the eyes of the law it is a clear cut case of self-defense. Go back and read my original post. I wasn’t addressing this issue from a legal point of view. I was addressing it from the point of view of a properly trained, responsible gun owner. There is a difference, and the difference is important.

  53. “m just saying that you guys seem to be assuming that a violent clash between rioters and police would have been more successful (an outcome none of you have bothered to define) than letting the riot run its course.”

    This is a very fair question. If police had stepped in, I suspect that the damage to property could have much less, but there could have been horrible bloodshed and lots of injuries on both sides. BLM/Antifa would then have used that as fodder more riots etc “look at the police brutality”.

    It is notable, however, that few Repulbican controlled cities had any rioting. Lots of peaceful protests, lots of BLM, lots of shouting, but no looting or arson. That was because they didn’t let it get out of hand in the first place and the relevant governors/mayors etc made it abundantly clear that the police/national guard etc were not going to pussyfoot the whole thing.

    Were the police stayed back, you got the looting and riots and then you end up with people on roofs of car lots – to act as a deterrent so that the mob would go and trash some place else.

    In general, I wouldn’t start from here. It’s a clusterphuque all round, but that does not detract in any way from KR’s lawful self-defence that night.

  54. Dennis, you either aren’t an American, don’t understand American law, don’t own a firearm, shouldn’t own a firearm because you don’t understand basic gun safety protocol, didn’t watch much of the trial or see much of the evidence, or all of the above. It doesn’t surprise me. The media coverage has been so biased that many people are JUST now finding out that all of the people involved in the shooting are/were white men.

    I’ve been in both major political parties. I have family members on both sides of the aisle. When someone lunges toward your firearm, gets within 3 feet of you, and especially if they’re physically touching your gun, it is suicidal not to neutralize the threat. Dennis, you have no room to give character judgments, because you are oblivious to your own bias. You are thinking entirely in hindsight. Someone being threatened with their own death does not have the luxury of hindsight.

    “You don’t care for the people who KR shot”

    I WOULD care for them if they weren’t charging toward a loaded AR-15, some of them while holding weapons of their own. If Kyle didn’t shoot, he had many reasons to believe he would be dead himself. You remind me of a BLM activist that I once saw on the news who, much like you, kept making excuses for why a police officer should not shoot a suspect. But he agreed to undertake a police training course for a day, and was immediately shooting suspects in the simulation, even when the police officers said it was not yet justified. You can’t look at these situations as if they are in a controlled laboratory experiment. If a burglar breaks into your house, you’re not going to first check his pockets, ask him about his upbringing, find out what his intent is…you neutralize the threat. I should “care for” the people who threatened Kyle? So when I see footage of someone breaking into a convenience store and the clerk shoots him, I should care for the burglar?

    Do you know why we have the term “suicide by cop”? It’s because when someone grabs for a cop’s gun, or points their own weapon at a cop, it is such a dimwitted decision that it’s considered suicidal. That’s what happened in Kenosha, suicide by legally armed citizen.

    Whether you feel Kyle should’ve been there, should carry a gun, etc. is irrelevant. Just like it’s irrelevant to the case that Joseph Rosenbaum was a convicted sex offender who raped at least 5 underage boys, and went directly to the riots the day that he was released from a mental hospital, and was far less connected to Kenosha than Kyle. Just like it’s irrelevant that Anthony Huber had domestic abuse charges. If you watched the trial, you may have noticed that Huber’s great-aunt, not his mother or siblings, testified on his behalf. That’s because he had a history of threatening his own mother with a knife. Gaige Grosskreutz had a history of DUIs, smashing his ex-girlfriend’s window, hitting his grandmother and felony burglary. Unlike Kyle, Grosskreutz was actually illegally carrying a firearm that night in Kenosha. All three of the people shot also had anti-cop views, and were committing crimes before Kyle even got involved.

    Unlike you, I’m not letting any of that cloud my judgment. This is not a character trial, it’s a trial regarding self-defense. It is a fact that 100% of people who didn’t chase and corner Kyle are alive and unharmed after that night. Kyle never chased anyone, and you don’t even have any footage of him doing so. If you don’t know that, then you are not informed enough to comment on this case. Please stay far away from any juries in your jurisdiction.

  55. “I was addressing it from the point of view of a properly trained, responsible gun owner. There is a difference, and the difference is important.”

    Ok. Fair enough.

    Two points:
    1) the Media are selling the lie that KR is a white supremacist murderer. If that lie is allowed to take hold, we’re phuqued. Right now, with hihs life in the jury’s hands (and possibly with the jjudge as backstop on the mistrial with prejudice ruling), that’s far more important. That’s what’s being argued here. Critically, leftists are using the idea that “he shouldn’t have been there” to bolster their argument that it was not lawful self-defence. Don’t give them that rope.

    2) I’m going to question the properly trained gun owner thing. The evidence shows KR to have good trigger discipline (in makred contrast to the prosecutor) and positively astonishing fire discipline. Having been chased by howling mob shouting “Get him! Cranium that guy!” and been knocked to the ground by rocks and one hit from Huber’s skateboard, the first guy to run up on him stopped short and raised his hands when KR, on his back on the ground, pointed his rifle. KR DID NOT SHOOT.

    After dealing with JKM and Huber, GG comes on him, KR raises his rifle but DOES NOT SHOOT. Only when GG brings his pistol to point at KR does he shoot.

    Also, 8 shots, 7 hits. I think he had had a great deal more training that he let on.

  56. “and went directly to the riots the day that he was released from a mental hospital”

    Not true. He walked some miles to his girlfriend’s house, but she had taken out a restraining order on him and told him to get lost and THEN he walked 4 miles to get to the riots.

    🙂

  57. Dennis, twatty poseur with a false sense of security:
    The sole justification of carrying a firearm is self-defense. SELF-DEFENSE.

    Oh.

    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Seems odd that the founders of the country left the only justification completely out of the frickin constitution. Dozy bastards should’ve never been let near guns; should’ve stayed home and called the police.

  58. I’m still waiting for the prosecutor to be arrested for pointing the rifle at people in the courtroom and (can this be right?) pulling the trigger.

  59. Pedant-General: Point taken lol

    PJF: The police were on the scene. I’ll bet you have absolutely no idea why they were just sitting on their asses and letting the city burn, huh?

    Even the prosecution didn’t object when the judge dismissed the firearm possession charge. Nor did they object when he dismissed the curfew violation charge. Why do you think that is?

    By the way, Gaige Grosskreutz had a felony on his record, and was definitely not permitted to carry a firearm. And I’m pretty sure he didn’t have to be at the riot either. If he had a grievance with law enforcement or the government, he could’ve filed a lawsuit, no? Interesting that you have such an extreme bias and only apply judgment toward the people you don’t like.

    That’s why this case isn’t about whether these people should’ve been there, or what they should’ve been carrying. It’s limited only to whether or not you can defend yourself if cornered by someone who has clearly demonstrated malicious intent through observable behavior.

    In America, we judge a case based on the law, not on what you think the law should be. That is why people like you tend to be so surprised when people are acquitted.

  60. Dennis echoes the thinking of most of America’s gun trainers. It’s a very valid philosophy that has kept countless gun owners out of prison. Essentially – carrying a gun does not turn you into the police. You do not become society’s defender when you carry a firearm – you carry it to defend yourself, and maybe those around you, from direct attack. You do not enforce laws, you do not take prisoners, you do not brandish to persuade . . .

    I have been in – and taught – classes where much the same situation as Kenosha has been discussed. You know trouble is about to happen downtown. You want to protect property and lives. What do you do? ANSWER: You call the cops and pressure them to get off their rears and stop the riot. You do NOT go there with your gun.

    Problem is, while this workaday solution keeps gun owners out of jail, it ignores the idea that the second amendment wasn’t written for hunting or even for self-defense. It was written so that we can keep our government from becoming overly totalitarian – mostly through the threat of an armed citizenry, and maybe at the extreme through force of those arms.

    And that sentiment doesn’t play well with “concealed carry” classes for the masses. So there’s a conflict, a stress, in this situation. Dennis is correct in what he says, but maybe not complete.

  61. aoijroaejr

    Also, Dennis does actually agree with us on the law. He’s simply arguing a – possibly defensible – point that KR didn’t need to be there and would not be in this fix if he wasn’t.

    I happen to think that debatable and, possibly, in poor taste, this being one of Dennis’s particular fortes which often makes for good and entertaining reading here.

    My concern is that, even if he is right, he is bouying up the real morons who do not agree with us on the law.

  62. “In America, we judge a case based on the law, not on what you think the law should be. That is why people like you tend to be so surprised when people are acquitted.”

    Laws can be maddeningly vague, and more correctly the laws say what the judge says they say.

  63. Dennis, Tiresome Denizen of Central Ohio

    PJF –

    If you knew your ‘Merican history, you’d know that at the time the Constitution was written, the Continental Army was less than a year old, quite small and not particularly professional. A well regulated militia was a matter of necessity for the Founding Fathers. Now, over 200 years later, and with a large professional military establishment in place, the idea of citizen-soldiers being called to arms by a crier on horseback seems to have fallen by the wayside. So, in reality, I was being more realistic than ignorant. But you grasp at whatever straw keeps the dream alive.

  64. Dennis, Twatty Something or Other

    You are thinking entirely in hindsight. Someone being threatened with their own death does not have the luxury of hindsight.

    You miss my point: This has nothing to do with hindsight and everything to do with foresight.

    KR was threatened with his own death was because of a serious lapse of judgment on his part. He had the luxury of foresight… He could have reasonably come to the conclusion that result of his actions could be violence. In fact, he did come to that conclusion, and rather than exercise proper judgment and stay away from the riot, he armed himself and went to it.

  65. Dennis’ argument is no different from the following:

    1. Gaige Grosskreutz would not have been shot if he stayed home.

    2. Joseph Rosenbaum wouldn’t be dead if he stayed home.

    3. Anthony Huber wouldn’t be dead if he stayed home.

    4. Kenosha residents wouldn’t have been in danger if they left town and stayed at a friend’s/relative’s house.

    5. Jacob Blake wouldn’t have been shot if he stayed home.

    6. Any woman wouldn’t have been raped if she didn’t associate with or encounter rapists during the evening hours, while alone, while wearing a skimpy outfit.

    7. There would be no plane crashes if the airplane had never been invented.

    It’s just a stupid, irrelevant argument. If anything, god forbid, were to happen to Dennis without provocation, would he find it appropriate or in any way intelligent for the public to evaluate whether he had any “business” being where he was at the time? Who the hell has any say in that?

    The fact that Kyle (or anyone, for that matter) were merely present and existing in a place, with or without a firearm makes no difference. Even AntiFa had a right to demonstrate if they were just walking and talking. They were doing a lot more than walking and talking, however. Kyle was walking and barely even talking to the rioters. He was putting out fires, rather than allowing the fires to spread and engulf more of the town. Dennis’ argument is akin to when the the prosecutor asked “Why did you go toward the fire?” to which Kyle answered, “Um…because it’s a fire.”

    I didn’t see even one fire truck on the scene. Is Dennis saying the locals should just allow their homes and businesses to be burned down, and allow the rioters to hospitalize anyone they disagree with, without consequences, and without any guarantee that they will be adequately compensated for damages? Why have any government at all if they won’t even fulfill the basic duty of protecting their constituents? Kyle had the “audacity” to put out fires.

    Why did he bring a gun to the riot? Ask yourself this question: If there weren’t people like Gaige Grosskreutz there who had been bringing their firearms to the scene in the nights prior, then would Kyle have even thought to bring a rifle in the first place? We’ll never have the answer to that, but as the video evidence shows, even the clear presence of an AR-15 wasn’t enough to deter a mob of psychopaths. These were people who were violent enough to necessitate the bringing of a firearm just to keep Kyle safe from any *potential* threats. So why was Kyle “injecting himself” into the situation? Because the cops were supposed to and didn’t. I think Dennis is hung up on the fact that Kyle is a teenager, but that makes no difference if he is still old enough to legally hold that firearm and has just as much right to be there as anyone else.

    Would I have gone there? Probably not. I also probably wouldn’t take a bullet for a stranger, or become a police officer or join the military. That doesn’t mean it’s foolish to do. If you don’t want a Kyle Rittenhouse situation to happen again, then don’t defund your police department, and don’t vote for politicians who tie the police department’s hands behind its back. If someone is choking and a CPR expert isn’t present, it’s okay to do what you can to help in the meantime.

  66. I think there’s a wider point here. We all have the ability to do what ever we are capable of. In the matter of law & order, we refrain from doing so & agree to delegate protecting our personal safety & the safety of our property to the police & the justice system. Now the police may choose to ignore people breaking the law. And that’s what Dennis is saying they did. It was judged expedient not to suppress the rioting & destruction of property. But then you can’t go half way on this. If the police & the justice system are not going to enforce the law on rioting, how can they enforce the law on a killing that results from it? Kyle shouldn’t be on trial because the court has no legitimacy to try him.

  67. “In all the trips I’ve made to the US I’ve never seen anyone with a gun except cops.”

    I’m close to 100% certain you have seen people with guns in the US. 100% if you weren’t limited to the few huge Democrat cities. You just didn’t see the guns. If someone can tell that I’m carrying, I’m doing it wrong.

  68. Kyle wasn’t threatened because he showed up to a riot with a gun, and didn’t even use it before being attacked.

    He was threatened because he put out a fire. Kyle did absolutely nothing to provoke the attack by Rosenbaum.

    If showing up just holding a gun (legally) is provocation, then what do you call arson, death threats, chasing, warning shots, blunt force with a skateboard and pointing a pistol at Kyle’s face?

  69. Keep in mind, Kyle was one of dozens if not hundreds of other people holding a firearm that night. A police officer was on the witness saying he’d guess there were more people carrying that night than not.

    It’s not like Kyle was the “lone gunmen” who everyone had their eye on. He was one of many people who were carrying, and he made an effort to only DE-escalate any situations and to stay in the background only putting out fires. So just the fact that he was at the riot and carrying an AR-15 was not scaring anyone there.

    In Seattle, the CHAZ/CHOP zone was protected with the same sort of rifle in a much more illegal manner. That was not a self-defense case if you look at its details. CHAZ revolutionaries were trying to take over a city and intimidate law-abiding citizens. Kyle was putting out fires.

  70. “Now, over 200 years later, and with a large professional military establishment in place, the idea of citizen-soldiers being called to arms by a crier on horseback seems to have fallen by the wayside.”

    Aren’t you sort of assuming that you’d be on the government’s side in your scenario? If that were true, then, sure, you’d be useless and unneeded. But the history and wording of the 2A also provides for the reverse situation.

    (If you can put up with Newt Gingrich for 25 minutes, this is an excellent video explaining the philosophy behind the 2A. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO8OpsbTDr0 )

  71. Dennis, Bullshit Detector

    I asked if anyone actually had any evidence that proper police doctrine was to suppress a riot with violence. So far no one has answered.

    The argument seems to be that because the police didn’t suppress the riot, then all that flowed from it was their fault. Is that a legitimate conclusion to draw when you don’t know why the police did what they did? This may shock folks, but their are people in government and law enforcement that do research and planning for these sorts of events, and from that research and planning doctrine and policy and procedure emerges. Not one of you seem to be able to grasp that simple fact. You assume the police did what they did because they were lazy or cowardly or “on the other side”. Or something. Anything seems to do. Why? Because it fits that narrative you’ve constructed for yourself.

    Until one of you does a bit of homework on the subject, I’m calling bullshit on the lot of you.

  72. Dennis: Oppressor, Warmonger, Capitalist and Consumer of Petroleum Products

    Aren’t you sort of assuming that you’d be on the government’s side in your scenario?

    No, just acknowledging that a bunch of untrained, overweight suburbanites armed with whatever happens to be in the house might not fair well in combat against the 3rd Marine Division.

  73. Dennis, Pointing Out The Obvious, Yet Again

    For a bunch of guys who claim to be concerned about authoritarian government, it’s interesting is that your biggest bitch is that the government in Kenosha wasn’t authoritarian enough.

  74. “I asked if anyone actually had any evidence that proper police doctrine was to suppress a riot with violence. So far no one has answered.”

    That’s because Kyle wasn’t trying to suppress the riot at all when he fired his weapon. He was trying to keep three specific people from murdering him. No one has answered you because you clearly have no idea what you’re even asking.

    Before the altercations, Kyle wasn’t trying to suppress the riot either. He was putting out fires. He was simply preventing the arson of the rioters from affecting the town residents who weren’t even involved in the rioting. When a building’s sprinkler system activates, it’s not preventing you from lighting a match. It’s just putting out the fire when it’s gotten out of control and starts to threaten the rest of the property.

    “No, just acknowledging that a bunch of untrained, overweight suburbanites armed with whatever happens to be in the house might not fair well in combat against the 3rd Marine Division.”

    Careful, you’re proving my point about your tunnel vision bias. You’re using the “just look at him” defense from Idiocracy.

  75. “For a bunch of guys who claim to be concerned about authoritarian government, it’s interesting is that your biggest bitch is that the government in Kenosha wasn’t authoritarian enough.”

    Basic security isn’t authoritarianism. You’re using the same “black and white” dichotomy that I used back when I was, say, about 15 years old. Just like most liberals don’t support socialism, most conservatives don’t believe in a non-existent government. Most conservatives point to the Constitution, which says there are *certain* things the federal government can control, and the rest is handled at the state level. Those things that the federal government can control include security of the country. That’s why the president is sworn to protect from all enemies, “foreign and domestic,” when he/she is inaugurated.

    At the state and local level, a governor, mayor, sheriff or other such official can put out orders for security measures. In this case, Kenosha authorities didn’t even fulfill their basic duties to put out fires or arrest people who were setting them, or arrest people who were escalating violence. Even if you personally feel Kyle was escalating, the police weren’t around to arrest him either. That is what people are angry about, that the police and firefighters didn’t even…police and fight fires.

    Are you seriously suggesting that officers and firefighters doing their assigned jobs would be “AuThOrItArIaN”?

  76. What you’d have is a bloodbath, and most likely many innocent dead. 5,000 dumb motherfuckers are just that… 5,000 dumb motherfuckers.

    Dennis, I was using your “dumb motherfucker” ironically – don’t overlook the obvious. It turns out that massed armed citizens turning out to defend their town can make a difference, and the difference is important.

    Spokane: riots, arson, looting. Coeur d’Alene: peace.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lF_i-5PNqA

    http://inlandnwreport.com/2020/06/06/armed-citizens-defend-north-idaho-town-rioters-looters-keep-out/

    Not bad for a bunch of dumb motherfuckers. Kenosha burned because it didn’t have enough dumb motherfuckers. They stayed away and waited for the police.

  77. This may shock folks, but their are people in government and law enforcement that do research and planning for these sorts of events, and from that research and planning doctrine and policy and procedure emerges.

    Just lolz.

  78. PJF

    That’s what America’s about. Andrew Yang just gave an interview talking about how unified we are in the real world. More people need to understand that. I can’t even begin to explain to outsiders how unnecessary these riots and media fear mongering are.

  79. “No, just acknowledging that a bunch of untrained, overweight suburbanites armed with whatever happens to be in the house might not fair well in combat against the 3rd Marine Division.”

    That’d just be dumb. No, we go after supply lines, sniping opportunities, and the family and friends and pets of the troops massed against us. Kinda like the original way our ancestors – “a bunch of untrained, overweight suburbanites armed with whatever happens to be in the house” – chased out the highly organized and well-armed British troops.

    Without personal arms and the will to use them back then, we’d still be Brits. Afghans would be Russians. The Irish would be no more. It wouldn’t be pretty, nor would it be a sure thing. But the threat is as valuable to us as the deed, and the threat is embodied in the Second Amendment.

  80. @bobby b, November 17, 2021 at 6:31 am
    Did you miss Grosskreutz’s testimony?

    “After we attacked Rittenhouse, he was lying on ground. I walked up and held gun in both hands pointed at him….then he shot me”

    If one is being attacked by three, some armed, one neutralises closest threat first

    Your view seems to be Rittenhouse should have let Rosenbaum kick the sh1t out of him before Grosskreutz shot him

    @ Tim the Coder, November 17, 2021 at 10:09 am
    “The jury will rule “Guilty” ‘cos the crowd outside are ready with tyre necklaces & petrol for the full Mandela experience”
    +1 and for the judge too

    @Tim the Coder, November 17, 2021 at 3:50 pm
    @opaeijoiaejr, November 17, 2021 at 4:19 pm
    +1

    Everything You Need To Know About The Rittenhouse Trial
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4qFhDT4v3Q

  81. “Your view seems to be Rittenhouse should have let Rosenbaum kick the sh1t out of him before Grosskreutz shot him.”

    Nope. Not my view. I would vote for acquittal. My point was, the charges arising from his interaction with Rosenbaum are the most technically legally problematic for him. You don’t get to deal with your attackers/shooting targets as a group – they are treated as individuals. You have more legal justification for shooting an armed attacker than an unarmed one, even if they are together.

  82. ? The interaction with Rosenbaum is the clearest of the lot: KR has no prior action, Rosenbaum was clearly hiding, waiting for him to go past before chasing him down. Rosenbaum had made prior, specific threats and had been seen to be armed with a very substantial chain. He was clearly also unhinged.

    The other 3 could claim they were trying, heroically, to deal with an “active shooter”. Rosenbaum does not even have that.

  83. What bobby b is saying is that, purely from the perspective of the written law, there is simply more that is needed to prove self-defense than the other two incidents that night. The law will still most likely exonerate Kyle, and hopefully common sense will prevail, but bobby is just saying that the Rosenbaum portion is what required the most work from the defense team to get Kyle acquitted.

    My main worry is that the jury will give the drone footage or some other camera angle too much credit. Even if the drone footage were at closer range and in perfect focus (it isn’t), an individual being attacked doesn’t have the advantage of a bird’s eye view. Kyle was on the ground and only knew of his immediate surroundings, as was the situation for anyone else there. He didn’t have the luxury of knowing every possible escape route from the Car Source at that moment. He wasn’t playing a first-person shooter game, where you have an aerial map in the corner of your vision at all times.

    All he knew was “I’m being chased by someone who’s already threatened me. I’ve already tried escaping and now I’m cornered and feel my life is in imminent danger.” At least, that’s the defense’s argument.

  84. @Pedant-General

    Not necessarily. It very well could be that most jurors are leaning toward acquittal, but want to make extra sure that they are not overlooking any small details. Keep in mind that these are (as far as we know) non-lawyers who, if they followed instructions, have not heard any expert analysis from the media. The prosecution told them that bringing a gun to a riot somehow disqualifies someone from the right to self-defense. The jurors have to sift through everything with a fine-toothed comb and figure out what is the truth. They have to be as sure as possible, if they acquit Kyle, that they are not letting a murderer off the hook.

    The jury also has some real personal risks involved here. Definitely a good bit of jury intimidation has occurred already, as the protests were reportedly heard from inside the courtroom. And now there’s a story about an MSNBC reporter stalking the bus transporting the jurors. Even if you’re sure that Kyle is not guilty, you still might want to take your time with deliberations to at least make it look like you considered every nook and cranny carefully. Probably won’t do anything to dissuade AntiFa and BLM if the “wrong” verdict is reached, but it’s the kind of thing many people would do to ensure that there was no rash decision being made.

    Personally, regardless of my feelings about the case, if I have control over the fate of an 18-year-old and it’s not an obvious guilty verdict, I would want to make sure I felt good morally about my decision. True, there could (probably will) be more riots in Kenosha if Kyle is found not guilty. Even though the city actually hired some security this time, there could still be more deaths in the coming days or weeks. At the end of the day, Kenosha won’t be under attack forever, just like the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore blew over after a while. But if they convict Kyle, he’s dealing with that verdict until the day he dies. So I don’t consider societal pressure to be a good enough excuse to factor into a verdict. Worst-case scenario, I’d just move out of town after doing the right thing. At least I’d be able to sleep at night. And the civil unrest that would result from changing the definition of self-defense is much worse for everyone than a fair verdict that a pissed off noisy 5-10% of the population throws a tantrum over.

  85. Or, if the jury is mostly full of anti-Rittenhouse jurors, it might be taking them a while to realize that their biases are not in line with the facts of the case.

  86. This is looking really bad.

    Long deliberations do usually mean a guilty verdict, if a verdict comes.

    I suspect a verdict won’t come. What is interesting is what the judge does then. He has two defence motions for calling a mistrial, one with prejudice, one without (without means a retrial). Due to the prosecution’s behaviour, and now media jury tampering, I suspect the judge will seriously consider mistrial-with-prejudice.

  87. @paoeijrae, November 18, 2021 at 7:46 pm
    +1 Spot on

    Insightful comments
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/16/bbc-believes-a-conspiracy-drives-climate-conspiracy-theories/#comment-3389955

    Led me to:

    Rittenhouse Defense Files Late Motion for Mistrial with Prejudice — No Retrial if Granted
    https://thelibertydaily.com/breaking-rittenhouse-defense-files-late-motion-for-mistrial-with-prejudice-no-retrial-if-granted/

    MSNBC banned from Kyle Rittenhouse trial after producer accused of following jurors
    https://nypost.com/2021/11/18/msnbc-banned-from-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/18/rittenhouse-trial-msnbc/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8seYGgTN4A
    .
    O/T
    “‘Most ‘vaccinated’ place on earth cancels Christmas”
    100% Vaccinated and Christmas Cancelled
    https://trialsitenews.com/100-vaccinated-and-christmas-cancelling-surge-the-gibraltar-situation/

    Amid a surge in Covid cases, Gibraltar has cancelled official Christmas events and “strongly” discouraged people from hosting private gatherings for four weeks. Gibraltar’s entire eligible population is vaccinated
    https://www.rt.com/news/540442-gibraltar-cancels-christmas-covid/

    Can we please stop these unscientific, illogical & dangerous ‘vaccinations’, boosters, mandates, passports etc. The ‘vaccines’ do not work. They make infections continue as vaxxed can repeatedly re-infect each other

  88. Nope, that’s an urban legend. Statistically it’s irrelevant. Still could be a guilty verdict, only the jury knows for sure, but we have no idea what they’re spending this time thinking about.

    Wisconsin is a blue-dog democrat state, so they have more lenient gun laws, but this part of the state is fairly liberal and the jury might not be full of gun owners. It’s a possibility that some of them are learning about WI gun laws, the Second Amendment and self-defense for the first time. I know that would certainly be a likelihood in New York City, or in Milwaukee–which is 20 miles away from Kenosha, or in Chicago–about an hour from Kenosha.

    Hell, many full-grown adults are still learning what Free Speech is.

    Even if they think Kyle is guilty, they still have to follow the jury instructions, which means they have to satisfy the proper criteria to find him guilty whether they like it or not. If they see any reasonable doubt toward the prosecution’s arguments then they have to acquit. There are cases that have more gray area, like the Chauvin trial or the George Zimmerman trial. Kyle’s case is so cut-and-dry, with the several angles of video footage, that the jury can see a million examples of Joseph Rosenbaum aggressively chasing Kyle. They will not see even one instance of Kyle chasing anyone or provoking the attacks. And they are not allowed to judge on Kyle’s “right to be there.” Even without the extra character evidence from the outside news media, the jury will clearly see the violent behavior from Rosenbaum that’s shown in the submitted videos.

    The way I see it, even a bonafide AntiFa piece of shit like Gaige Grosskreutz took the threat of perjury charges seriously when he admitted to pointing his gun at Kyle. So the average juror will also likely respect the instructions they are given.

    Interestingly, the longest deliberation period in U.S. history lasted 55 days in California, and it resulted in the acquittal of 3 police officers.

    Derek Chauvin’s deliberations lasted 10 hours and he was convicted. Of course, I expect to see one or two appeals in that case, since the jury selection was…well, one of the jurors was photographed several times wearing a George Floyd t-shirt, and he was still allowed to stay on the case. That tells you something right there.

  89. “they are not allowed to judge on Kyle’s “right to be there.””

    In theory yes, but who knows what’s going on in that room. In practice, it’s a bit more like “don’t look at that man behind the curtain”.

    This appears to us to be completely cut and dried self-defence – the fact that they’ve been at it for 3 days suggests that they are indeed deciding this case on other factors. Or at least one of them is.

  90. Given the material the jury asked to re-examine (the “drone” video) it does seem that they are hung up on the prosecution’s “provocation” argument. And that’s the video the prosecution gave only a low-res and cropped version of to the defence, much to the consternation of the judge.

    If the jury find guilt only on that count it could get very interesting.

  91. Some times, I am so pleased to be proven wrong.
    I was convinced the jury would be got at. Even the prosecutor threatening them with an assault rifle didn’t do it.
    Now lock up the prosecutor for:
    – Jury Intimidation with a firearm
    – Recklessly pointing a firearm at people, with no trigger discipline
    – Deliberately withholding the high-res drone footage from the defence, and lying to the judge about it
    – Lying about lack of knowledege of video compression versions (despite Handbrake being on his PC)
    – Trying to malign Kyle’s use of the 5th in the original interview, something the judge had explicitly told him not to do.

  92. @TtC given the prosecution’s performance in this, do you think someone would actually let him do anything in a courtroom ever again?

    To the Woke Media he’s the man who failed a “cut-and-dry” case, while they’re busy channelling the howls of outrage from the “victim family”. To people with any sense he’s proven to be a bit of an incompetent pillock.
    Can’t imagine a stellar career in Law for that one from this point on.

  93. . . . do you think someone would actually let him do anything in a courtroom ever again?

    Sure. There was no case here and he eeked blood out from a stone; he got the jury deliberating for days. Given that, there was a reasonable chance he could have succeeded, and then his outrages would have been precedent setters. If I was an evil leftist fucker trying to rescue the best out of nothing, I’d have his number on file.

  94. @PJF
    Indeed. He sprang the ‘drone’ video at the last moment (fortuitously delivered by the evidence fairy, with no chain of custody), and he released only a degraded version to the defence, so he could spring ‘provocatioon’ at the last moment.
    With a normally corrupt judge, and with a jury that has their name and address (and likewise of their families) all over the internet, that’d be enough in all normal cases.
    All credit to the judge and jury. May they live long and prosper. Please.

    The left is going bat-shit crazy. Good. It greatly helps when the targets self-identify as such.

  95. Not to be petty, but I notice a certain user whose alias rhymes with “menace” is awful silent right about now. Probably out in the streets at the moment, acting out on his extreme misinformation.

    The prosecution had a job, and they did it to the best of their ability. I really think they could’ve done without so much of the argument and speculation, and just stuck with the points they had (even if it worked, I don’t think knowingly ruining a kid’s life with blatant lies is anything to be proud of), but that’s probably why I could never be a lawyer. For the government, anyway. You just know they had Governor Evers foaming at the mouth for a conviction before his next election. Governor Cuomo pulled similar shenanigans with the Proud Boys in New York and, unfortunately, the strategy worked in that case. It’s part of the reason why even some commenters on this very website possibly think the PBs are some kind of terrorist organization.

    Gaige Grosskreutz will now spend the rest of his life being challenged to arm wrestling matches by every new person he meets. And anyone who decides to riot against this verdict and spread even more falsehoods is only showing the jurors and the rest of the public why people like Kyle Rittenhouse exist in the first place. I think it was Kyle’s lawyer who said there aren’t any real winners after this trial. If anything, the rule of law certainly prevailed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *