Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Post Reply New Topic

How about:
1: The prosecution case (murder) is NOT proven: He confessed to killing them, but the prosecution still need to prove it was murder, not a "justified" killing (self defence).
2: The defence will present facts to demonstrate it was "self defence"
3: irrelevant, as included in 2.
4: The jury decide if the evidence\explanation, as supplied by the defendant's lawyers demostrates that the killings did not reach the standard required to meet the charges and presented by the prosecution (reasonable doubt).

If it helps you understand what I assume is your own legal system (disappointing that it takes someone in another country to help teach you how it really works, as opposed to how you think it works...):

Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/criminal-cases
State courts in the U.S.A. work in the same way as the federal court, as do criminal courts in a number of other countries, as they are derived from English common law (from memory).

The only legal gun involved here was Rittenhouses'.

The prosecutor team makes an affirmative case for their argument.

They don't have to prove it was not 100+ possible legal defense arguments a defense team could potentially make.

If Rittenhouse was too poor, and could not afford a good attorney, perhaps, they would "railroad" him, and convict him on all charges, simply because he could not afford to raise a good defense. This probably happens a lot.

Pretty horrific compilation, but contains footage of some of the involved parties.

Apparently, a few details weren't widely reported with regards to Jacob Blake being shot by the police that started the Kenosha riots:
* The knife was one of the type with "brass knuckles" as part of the handle, making disarming him harder (he may have been "holding" it all the time, which was why the police didn't tackle him).
* He had already attacked the officers, having held one in a headlock at some point.
* Tasers had been used against him with no effect.
* He was at the residence of a person despite having a restraining order to prevent this occurring.
* The vehicle he was getting into seems not to have been his.
* There were 3 children in the back of the vehicle (possibly his, but who he did not have custody of).

Let's see how much of Rittenhouse's social media history can be recovered after he went home and deleted everything.

One of the things prosecutors will want to know is his connection to a milita called the Kenosha Guards, it was highly suspicious he was seen in company of armed militia possibly linked to this group.

The Molotov cocktail allegation was a viral rumour started on facebook claiming that Rosenbaum fired a Molotov cocktail at the alleged shooter which has now been debunked.

It's literally in the video. It hits the ground with a clink and starts rolling away. It not breaking doesn't make it not there.

I just read that allegation of Molotovs was debunked, but I'll look at the video again.

Quoting myself. Best view I found.

As far as I am aware, your claims recently about his social media feeds being shut down was inaccurate\false, as was you claims that he said he "was going to be a vigilante":

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=389886&p=8597585#p8597585
So, based on that record, I have absolutely no expectation of there being truth in this assertion, either. In fact, working off your established record, it's more likely if nothing is found it will be be becasue it never existed in the first place.


It was also highly suspicious that all 3 of the protesters he shot were convicted criminals: Does this therefore also imply all the protestors participating in the protest that night should be considered convicted criminals? Under your logic, it appears they must be.

Strange this video doesn't play for me?

So I found this one on youtube


It looks like a soda bottle in a shopping bag? so a drink from 7-11 now becomes a potential murder weapon

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... nosha.html


I try and not be personal Bric,...you should make some attempt (although I don't hold my breath). My record so far is
Nick Sandmann - got it wrong
Amy Cooper - Got that one correct
McMichael Brothers - Got that one correct
Derek Chauvin - Got that one correct too

So I'm happy with a 75% success rate (up yours emoji)



As I said before, dead people cant be hauled into trial. You conveniently keep avoiding the fact that Rittenhouse is the one under scrutiny being charged with a double homicide.

Hard to tell what it was: if it was a "plastic bag", it certainly contained an object of some variety (an empty plastic bag doesn't move that far when thrown, and the dark areas in the object when a light is behind it also indiate the pressence of an item that was not a bag), and was intended to cause injury (why else would he throw it at Kyle, who was running away from him).

It may have been a burning object, or alternatively a plastic bag containing an item such as a brick (or portion thereof).

Yes, the video states he was there as a fist-aider - I don't see any mention of being there as a vigilante.

Similarly, there is no mention of his social media accounts being deleted, as you asserted...


Actually: 0 from 1, unless you happen to have access to the trial results for your 3 "successes" which haven't gone to trial yet... I'd be interested in reading those results, which you must obviously have access to, in order to be able to claim you were "correct".

And that would make it a 0% record, if you don't have those details\trial results, wouldn't it?

Rosenbaum unarmed.
Rosenbaum never physically touches Rittenhouse.
Rosenbaum is shot and falls down.

Then Rittenhouse pumps three more shots into Rosenbaum, even shooting him in his back.

That seems like clear murder.

Any links I can read of someone explaining how that's not murder?