cyberdad wrote:
My understanding is that Rittenhouse's defense team claimed he was receiving death threats, however it is unusual for a person on bond for murder to not disclose their location as there is the obvious issues that i) he will be breaching the conditions of his probation and ii) he will abscond before his trial.
As the judge in the hearing linked earlier mentioned - The DA had at no point requested a requirement that he live at a specific address (around 41:00 into the hearing to around 47:00), with the address being required merely to allow court notices (such as regarding hearings) to be received by him (around 11:00 into the hearing).
The fact that the DA was so concerned about the safety of those living at the address linked to Mr Rittenhouse that he specifically made a statement for anyone who watched the hearing\read the recordings that Mr Rittenhouse was no longer at this address (13:00 into hearing) would imply that the DA acknowledges there is risk to him.
cyberdad wrote:
I imagine cavorting with known right wing groups (Proud boys) in a bar posing while doing white supremacist hand signs and drinking alcohol (he is under aged) might not exactly be what the judge had in mind when he allowed bail.
I imagine that if a person is out in public and someone asks to have their photograph taken with them, they are unlikely to look up the person online\check their social media to see what associations they may have...Or are you claiming his family, who he was there with as a family "outing", are "right wing groups (Proud boys)"?
It should also be noted that insinuations about a link between Mr Rittenhouse and "known right wing groups (Proud boys)" are not borne out by court records:
Quote:
"The state has done an extensive search of all of Mr. Rittenhouse’s social media as part of its investigation in this case,” he said in the statement. “Upon information and belief, no information linking Mr. Rittenhouse to the listed organizations has been found.”
Source:
https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouse-bail-flashed-white-131144662.htmlSimilarly, it seems that the symbol being accused of being "white supremacist" appears only recognised as such by those in (or connected to) the groups, with minimal public awareness of this supposed association...Or, using the implied "logic" that anyone using it must automatically be a member of one of those groups, are you suggesting that all Budhists, Hindus, etc. who use the swastika are also Nazi's?
Quote:
It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SwastikaAs to the "underage drinking" implication: the fact that a simple (and minimal) level of diligence would show that where he was (Wisconsin) at that time, people under the age of 21 can carry and drink alcohol if they are with a parent, so he was not doing anything wrong, illegal, or even unusual...
14 Feb 2021, 12:22 am
