Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

That's true, but if there is a mistrial, could he be given money from the court for that, because of the prosecution's and media's mishandling of it, legally?

Last edited by ironpony on 18 Nov 2021, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As if the pro shooting & killing people people wouldn't pony up another half millski to defend their poster child..

@Fnord

I would also add to your list that the claim that Rittenhouse was minding his own business when he was chased is also false

Kyle Rittenhouse aimed his rifle at the crowd threatening civilians - at that critical point the Kenosha militia thought it prudent to leave Kyle to deal with the fallout. The crowd pursued him as a possible terror threat.

I can't find the part in the video where Rittenhouse aims his rifle at the crowd first to cause a provocation. Does anyone have the a link to the part of the video, where this happens?

The key points

Let's look at the facts
1.Jason Lackowski, a former Marine who was among the armed militia openly contradicted Kyle's version of events by saying that Rosenbaum was not considered a threat.

2.Richie McGinniss, a videographer for The Daily Caller, a conservative website, was perhaps the closest witness to the shooting of Mr. Rosenbaum to testify at the trial.McGinnis was nearly hit by Kyle's erratic shooting and had to check himself to see he wasn't hit. He went into the same SUV with Rosenbaum trying to support the dying man. This contradicts Kyle's version of events where he claimed Rosenbaum was a threat and Kyle was forced to shoot only in self-defense.

3.Officer Pep Moretti testified that he did not interpret Mr. Rittenhouse’s actions after the shooting as an attempt to surrender.

But the most important point that triggered the whole chain of events is when the militia that Kyle was with left him as he started acting dangerously pointing his gun at the protesters. Thomas Binger's closing statement meticulously outlined all the unlawful things Kyle had done that night.

Kyle claims that Rosenbaum "ambushed him", however there is no video evidence to back this claim. According to witnesses Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum claiming he was a threat (this is the drone video image captured that night). (This has already been posted in this thread).
The Jury have asked to watch the video provided by the prosecution so they are taking this seriously.

I am not trying to be difficult, but this seems to be in dispute.
The video evidence doesn't seem to be conclusive on either the lower or higher resolution evidence.



Neither can I.

Is he the guy in the light coloured pants kick at Rittenhouse?
I have also heard Rittenhouse was being threatened with death.
Is this correct?



-Rittenhouse was being chased and was trying to flee.
-I saw clear pictures of two men attacking Rittenhouse.
-The first guy with the light pants (who was that?) was attacking Rittenhouse while he was sitting on the ground.
-The second guy (who was that?) was using a skateboard to assault Rittenhouse while he was on the ground.
-The video stills I have seen were *not* conclusive, imo.

I'm triangulating it with witness statements.
Drew Hernandez, a right-wing internet personality who was covering the demonstrations, testified that when “rioters” spotted the men with guns, “they immediately attempted to agitate them, to try and start some conflict with them.”

What's interesting here is that the group Kyle was with was lead by Ryan Balch (An army vet) and several others positioned themselves at one of the mechanic shops, a low, flat-topped building. Men with rifles set up on the roof. Balch, who described himself as “anti-establishment,” had been immersed in far-right circles on social media.

Right wing Live-streamers had been chatting on camera with Balch and a member of his cohort: a talkative teen-ager in a backward baseball cap, with a semi-automatic rifle slung across his chest. A videographer said, “So you guys are full-on ready to defend the property?” The teen-ager, whose name was Kyle Rittenhouse, replied, “Yes, we are,”

The militia that Kyle was with removed themselves while Kyle pointed his weapon. It's this crucial moment I have been now talking about since August 2020 that Kyle's defense team is lying about.

Lackowski and Balch have not been called by the defense team because they were part of the group of militia Rittenhouse was with. Their testimony contradicts Kyle's story.

I find it interesting that right wing media people like Hernandez and MGinnis also contradict Kyle's version of events as well.

On the positive side, seeing someone claim anecdotal\hearsay evidence as being "Facts" certainly helps demonstrate the standard of accuracy of any "Facts" they provide elsewhere (past, present, and future), as well as how reliable (or accurate) further information they may provide will be.

Who said they saw him point the weapon?
That is unclear.

Well, I am still on the fence about the "pointing a weapon at people", since saying you are going to defend property isn't the same as *actually* pointing your weapon at people.

But if he did, damn!, what a way to destroy your life.

I haven't come across that testimony yet.



So, you are saying the right-wing media *can* be Truthful?
"Very Interesting".

He was one of the people who was helping protect the businesses and was called as a prosecution witness on day 4 of the trial.

From his cross-examination:

See video under "Lackowski Cross" at https://lawofselfdefense.com/rittenhouse-trial-day-4-two-state-blunders-create-opportunity-for-the-defense/ for the cross examination (27 minutes - relevant portion begins around 6:48 until around 8:50) - Prosecution's questioning of him is also available above and below this video.


Not sure on the first person - Is this "Jump-Kick" man you are referring to?
Second person was Mr Huber with the skateboard.

It's not "anecdotal evidence" if you can pick up an actual law book and verify it. The same standard generally applies to burden-of-evidence. Readily accessible information such as the height of mount everest or the atomic weight of oxygen do not need to be cited or backed-up. These instances are not just "what happened to ME", these are the actual requirements of the law. These are common tactics taught to and used by those who work in the field. You can easily verify that yourself. That's the nice thing about facts. They're recoded all over the place, and don't require that the individual be directed towards a single specific source, which may or may not be readily accessible.

I only add my own experiences to demonstrate that I'm not simply an armchair quarterback, and have actually experienced it myself in the real world. If you don't believe me, you don't have to. It's in most law books.

Dear Brictoria, Pepe, and Dox. As much time as you spend calling people biased, stupid, incompetent, emotional, and generally undercutting people personally, the idea of you clutching your pearls and unseating your monocles at the act of me mocking your IDEAS and BEHAVIOR, simply can't be taken seriously.

I mock your IDEAS, and your BEHAVIOUR. I'm pretty clear and specific about it. And that's allowed. And yet, the majority of the content of my posts is still addressing the LAW, and the TOPIC. Very little of it is actually addressed towards you - or more specifically, your IDEAS and BEHAVIOR. I know you know how to do it too. You're just mad cos you found someone your bratty smartass tactics don't work against.

You are pretty clever, and you use that to your advantage. You have a strength, and you wield it with intent. Nay, you even brag about it, how smart and clever and knowledgeable and unbiased you are, and of course, how stupid and biased and inferior your opponents are.

Let's be real, not many members on here can really hold their ground against your finely crafted bullsh!t. The few that can, you screech about how awful and evil they are. Apparently, when I rear my evil demonic head, that's just a bridge too far. The audacity! Being better than you at your own game!

Like I said, the fact that you spend most of your time just calling em stupid and evil, rather than actually counter-arguing my points, speaks worlds. "BuT yOuR pOiNtS aRnEnT wOrTh ArGuInG!" That's an excuse to not address them. Even a stupid point can get an explanation as to why it's stupid. Simply saying "it's stupid, that should be obvs, I don't need to explain it!" is a cop out. Y'all spend half your time whining about how stupid people are. Pretend you're explaining it for the benefit of those stupid people, so they don't fall for my evil rhetoric.

See, in the real, adult world, where things like consequences and accountability exist...

Another requirement of lawyers, and all professionals, is that they cannot knowingly give bad or wrong advice. A real lawyer or professional will not give advice cavalierly, as they are meant to be a reputable source on the matter. Giving formal "Expert" advice in a situation wherein that advice might actually be taken and acted upon, can be argued as legal culpability. No real lawyer will give specific advice to a general situation, the same way no doctor will take a guess over the phone as to why you're sick. So when someone comes out of the chute making decrees about what is or isn't legal, or what the judge should or shouldn't decide, that's not the behavior of someone who's been immersed in law. That's an armchair expert who thinks they know more than they do.

The actual answer you will get from most lawyers is "it depends". Cos the law is specific and nuanced, and too many factors come in to play to be able to definitively say whether or not "this thing is legal", when phrased in such a simple way. Hence why I talk so much about policy and procedure. For example, rather than say "kyle is guilty", I'd point out that "You legally can't defend property with lethal force" or "you can't knowingly put yourself INTO harms way, to then claim you were in danger for self defense". You'll note I've also stated what procedure is supposed to be, but I never said what the judge should decide - in fact, I specifically said it was for the judge to decide.

I have a Concealed Carry Permit. As such, I'm responsible for knowing federal state and local laws pertaining to the possession, carrying, and legal use of my firearm. The fact that somewhere is "only a few minutes away" doesn't mean I'm not still beholden to the legal jurisdictions of law to which I have agreed to comply with. If I cross a line, I've crossed a line - that's all there is to it - whether it be a jurisdictional line, or a legal one.

Being a pretentious know it all isn't going to save me from the consequences of acting unlawfully. There are serious responsibilities and consequences to even possessing a firearm, let alone traveling with one, to say noting of USING one, for whatever reason, in whatever situation. If your approach to using a firearm goes no deeper than screaming "self defense!", you are probably equal parts ignorant and dangerous.

Even when lawfully using a firearm for legitimate self defense, there are still huge ramifications involved. Civilians are not trained in situational awareness, and often don't consider things like what's behind the thing you're firing at. It's one thing when you're alone in your own house, but this was in public, at a demonstration. Everyone thinks they're Sniper Joe, but what if you MISS and hit someone else? What if you shoot the wrong person? What if you shoot the other Good Guy With A Gun who got there before you, cos you thought HE was the dangerous shooter, and then he fires back cos he thinks YOU are the dangerous shooter?

Even off-duty officers are hesitant to get involved in situations for exactly those reasons - they don't know the whole story, or who's who, doing what, and nobody can tell them from any other aggressor.

And how knowledgeable is Kyle regarding any of this? He's a KID. Who wanted to play hero. Even if he did coincidentally "save the day" in some way, he still did it the wrong way (unlawfully), and if you claim to value the rule of law, that should still matter. You don't get to cry "injustice!" and violate it at will just cos you wanna be a dudley do-right and save the day, and you happen to label them a "bad guy". If trouble comes to you, that's one thing If you had to GO TO trouble, that's NOT the same things, regardless of your intentions.

In the real world, when you shoot someone, it's not like the movies where the cops just decide "well, it was clearly self defense, we'll take a statement, have a nice day." You GO TO JAIL, until THEY FULLY INVESTIGATE, and determine what happened for themselves. Even lawfully shooting someone, without even killing them, can lead to thousands of dollars in unavoidable court costs, time in jail until they sort things out - not to mention all of the cascading consequence of that, if you actually have responsibilities other than sitting behind a computer and sharing opinions. Anyone who relies on you no longer has access to you. And in general, lethal force by definition can have permanent if not lethal consequences.

The difference between lethal and non lethal force is so vast, that some states still allow basic fistfights as a legal means of settling disputes. Meaning as long as both people are swinging, and nobody asks for help, the police legally just watch to make sure it doesn't escalate. I do not believe ANY states allow casual use of weapons or firearms against others as a means to settle disputes. It's kinda a big frekken deal. "With a weapon" changes a lot. Even if you are in fact acting lawfully when it's all said and done.

The very act of owning a firearm carries with it the implication that you fully understand the legalities surrounding it's lawful ownership, operation, and use. As part of my concealed carry permit, I had to learn from an active practicing law enforcement officer, and live fire demonstrate my ability to safely and competently discharge a firearm. Scuse me if I take this sh!t seriously. Die Hard isn't real life.

So when someone comes along preaching this and that about something with both LEGAL and LETHAL consequences, and they're wrong, in a potentially dangerous way, I tend to chime in, so as to potentially prevent someone mistaking bad advice for good advice. If you don't want to listen to me, then don't. I don't actually need your participation in order to follow along and check the details. Block me for all I care - at least I'm still letting other people know, and that's the part I really care about. Lotta members here are really impressionable, and tend to believe things quite easily. Even if I was factually right, I still don't know that I'd morally condone the action openly.

Guns are serious business, and they should be taken more seriously than some people do. This is literally the complicated part of carrying a concealed weapon. If you know its a dangerous part of town, and knowing that is why you went heeled and hot, then things are likely going to come down to your reasons for being there. If your sister lives there, and you were visiting her, that's a valid reason. But if your only reason for going there literally was "cos that's where the trouble was!", then you literally went LOOKING for trouble, even if you meant to prevent it. If you went LOOKING for trouble, for whatever reason, you can't claim self defense, cos you could have avoided the danger by not seeking the danger in the first place. Part of being a responsible firearm owner is KNOWING THAT, and things like that.

Now, if you have a real valid grievance with me...

Evidence, please?

Show me, explain it, break it down for me. Pretend I'm stupid. Draw it in crayons. Anything other than simply making a claim about me, and then giggling and agreeing with each other over it like a table full of valley girls. "OMG, IKR!" Don't just call me a racist. Go find the thing I said that was so terrible, and link to that thread, so that it can be seen in it's native context. That way you won't accidentally quote my obvious satire as a statement of truth by mistake. If I'm such a stalker, please, provide links to all these posts that I chase you all down on. Only one link per thread please, and only if it's actually in response to a post or thread which you have made - that way there's no misinterpreting me posting in the same thread as you, but not actually speaking at or of you, as a "stalk", nor would 10 responses to a single thread each be counted as a separate "stalk". And if I am so vastly obviously wrong, surely you can provide some references that prove this, such as a link to the actual text of a law, or a court case which sets a precedent which directly demonstrated the validity of your claims, or the invalidity of my claims, and not just some person writing an op-ed that we're supposed to take as accurate cos they said so.

Surely the Master of All Things Legal should be able to comply with these common and reasonable requests.

Or you could just trash talk some more. I'm sure that'll put me in my place

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 18 Nov 2021, 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Would it be in poor taste to post the autistic screeching meme? It feels appropriate in light of the unhinged wall of text full of unsupported accusations that was just posted.