Rittenhouse Trial

Choid

Anti Bodyfat Activist
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 13, 2017
4,723
3,067
I remember how mad you guys got at me when I suggested that, perhaps, Lin Wood was not an upstanding guy and not the best choice of lawyer. And that was before the election and before Lin Wood went LIN WOOD.
 

OldSalty2

Just a salty OG liberal.
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Aug 29, 2020
    1,837
    2,354
    its-all-about-me7.jpeg
     

    Choid

    Anti Bodyfat Activist
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    4,723
    3,067
    He's going to spend a good bit of time in jail, in all likelihood. And legally he probably should. But it's a tragedy because all of this could have been avoided had the "adults" in his community cared more about keeping law and order and less about ejecting a President. But I don't think those are mitigating circumstances in a trial, unless he gets a very friendly jury.
     

    Maggot

    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jul 27, 2007
    16,061
    13,783
    Virginia
    He's going to spend a good bit of time in jail, in all likelihood. And legally he probably should. But it's a tragedy because all of this could have been avoided had the "adults" in his community cared more about keeping law and order and less about ejecting a President. But I don't think those are mitigating circumstances in a trial, unless he gets a very friendly jury.
    Because he protected himself from a felon and a pedophile? He should get a reward for street cleaning.
     

    Choid

    Anti Bodyfat Activist
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    4,723
    3,067
    legally he defended himself from grievous bodily injury and death from 3 people who were attacking him using deadly force, as evidenced by the surviving attacker's drawn and held glock pistol.

    open and shut case, Johnson.
    I hope, and presume, that his lawyers have a better argument than that. Because, first of all, the third guy having a gun is not evidence that the two other people were attacking him with deadly force, and, if anything, the third guys drawn gun could be seen as more reasonable given that some dude had just shot and killed two people in the area. Like I said, i assume they have a better legal argument. His moral argument is no doubt stronger, but it is risky to argue on those lines.
     

    Choid

    Anti Bodyfat Activist
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    4,723
    3,067
    Not just having a gun retard.
    Held, pointed in extended fashion at Rittenhouse with finger on trigger. If I point a gun at someone with my finger on trigger after chasing them as part of a screaming mob they should shoot me just the same as Rittenhouse did.
    My point, I think you missed it. Retard.

    The point is that a gun in the THIRD guys hand doesn't prove anything about guys one and two, especially given that they were separated by time and place.
     

    Choid

    Anti Bodyfat Activist
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    4,723
    3,067
    Guys 1 and 2 we both also physically assaulting him. One was trying hit him over the head with a skateboard
    That is true, certainly with guy #2. Guy #1 was, according to Rittenhouse's lawyers, trying to disarm Kyle.
    Oh, well chasing someone while throwing things at them while shouting "I'm gonna kill you." is a deadly threat, and trying to hit someone in the head with the edge of a skateboard while they are on the ground is a deadly threat, so....
    Well, we will get to see what happens in court. All I said is that 1) legally his arguments are much weaker than they are morally, and 2) the third guy having a gun is not evidence about the first two guys.
     

    Ravenworks

    Zebco Pro Staffer
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Feb 8, 2019
    3,607
    6,818
    Somewhere
    I hope, and presume, that his lawyers have a better argument than that. Because, first of all, the third guy having a gun is not evidence that the two other people were attacking him with deadly force, and, if anything, the third guys drawn gun could be seen as more reasonable given that some dude had just shot and killed two people in the area. Like I said, i assume they have a better legal argument. His moral argument is no doubt stronger, but it is risky to argue on those lines.

    My point, I think you missed it. Retard.

    The point is that a gun in the THIRD guys hand doesn't prove anything about guys one and two, especially given that they were separated by time and place.


    WWCD
    What Would Choid Do

    Okay back on ignore you go
     

    DocRDS

    Undercover Fed Monitoring the Forum
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 21, 2012
    1,242
    1,976
    Moldova
    It will come down to jury. It always comes down to the jury.

    WI is a 'purple' state, but what that means is there are both extreme red and blue partisans. You get a few blue bois on that jury and it'll deadlock on aquittal. There are a ton of 'redneck WI people' (hell I'm a former one!) and one of those on the jury: no way they convict.

    I bet we get a hung jury.

    Oh and the facts don't matter--its a trial. (yes i just wrote that).

    This sums it up:
     

    Charger442

    Sergeant
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 2, 2010
    2,566
    2,533
    South Texas
    That is true, certainly with guy #2. Guy #1 was, according to Rittenhouse's lawyers, trying to disarm Kyle.

    its held as general knowledge in court and in the field that a citizen trying to disarm another citizen means they are doing so in order to use that firearm against that person. See also every court case where a police officer shoots a suspect trying to disarm them. the reason they are trying to disarm the cop is to shoot him with his own gun.

    so, if someone was trying to disarm Kyle, he had reasonable and probable cause to assume his gun would then be used against him.

    open and shut case, Johnson.
     

    mcameron

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 17, 2011
    6,136
    16,020
    Kyle is going to be found guilty, and he will spend the rest of his life locked in a gulag as a political prisoner for daring to protect himself from one of the brown shirts.

    if a cop can be found guilty of 1st degree murder because a crack head OD'd on fentanyl....what chance does Kyle really have?

    the American "justice" system is broken...facts do not matter...and the only thing they look at is which side of the isle you fall on.

    Antifa fuckhead who likes to rape children = innocent victim.
    a regular person trying to protect themselves from being murdered = Right wing literal Nazi.
     

    308pirate

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 25, 2017
    17,577
    25,330
    I hope, and presume, that his lawyers have a better argument than that. Because, first of all, the third guy having a gun is not evidence that the two other people were attacking him with deadly force, and, if anything, the third guys drawn gun could be seen as more reasonable given that some dude had just shot and killed two people in the area. Like I said, i assume they have a better legal argument. His moral argument is no doubt stronger, but it is risky to argue on those lines.

    You do realize that using a firearm in self defense isn't limited to defending yourself against others who also have guns. Right?

    You do realize that deadly force includes the use of blunt force weapons (both by design and by improvisation), edged weapons, disparity of force (in strength and/or numbers), and in many places kidnapping and sexual assault.................

    Right?
     

    Frank Green

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 27, 2006
    1,533
    2,266
    wisconsin
    www.bartleinbarrels.com
    I caught local news this morning and last night. The judge pretty much ruled on everything in favor for what the defense can do against the prosecution.

    Prosecution for example doesn't want the defense to call them rioters and looters etc...judge said NO! Defense can do that.

    Prosecution doesn't want them to allow the defense expert witness for defending one self...and he is a former police officer!

    Prosecution doesn't want the defense to use the video where the police told Rittenhouse that they appreciated what they where doing after Rittenhouse was surrendering himself to the police...judge said No. The defense can use the video.

    I agree though I can see this going either way. At least it looks like Rittenhouse has a fighting chance for now in court.
     

    mcameron

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 17, 2011
    6,136
    16,020
    You do realize that using a firearm in self defense isn't limited to defending yourself against others who also have guns. Right?

    You do realize that deadly force includes the use of blunt force weapons (both by design and by improvisation), edged weapons, disparity of force (in strength and/or numbers), and in many places kidnapping and sexual assault.................

    Right?
    dont you know....if someone is beating you to death with a pipe, you are not allowed to use a gun, because that would be "unfair"....your attacker deserves to be fought fairly.
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: lash and Snuby642

    TxWelder35

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Oct 17, 2018
    2,614
    3,868
    DFW
    its held as general knowledge in court and in the field that a citizen trying to disarm another citizen means they are doing so in order to use that firearm against that person. See also every court case where a police officer shoots a suspect trying to disarm them. the reason they are trying to disarm the cop is to shoot him with his own gun.

    so, if someone was trying to disarm Kyle, he had reasonable and probable cause to assume his gun would then be used against him.

    open and shut case, Johnson.
    And also, who was in the commission of crime when the altercation took place? It wasn’t rittenhouse.

    when you are in the middle of commiting a crime, then someone tries to defend themselves, you and all your buddies can’t go try and stop the guy from defending himself while you take a break from committing a crime to go commit another.
    Kyle is going to be found guilty, and he will spend the rest of his life locked in a gulag as a political prisoner for daring to protect himself from one of the brown shirts.

    if a cop can be found guilty of 1st degree murder because a crack head OD'd on fentanyl....what chance does Kyle really have?

    the American "justice" system is broken...facts do not matter...and the only thing they look at is which side of the isle you fall on.

    Antifa fuckhead who likes to rape children = innocent victim.
    a regular person trying to protect themselves from being murdered = Right wing literal Nazi.
    sadly this might also be very well true
     

    PolarisBreach

    Private
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 26, 2013
    251
    504
    Not sure what choid is smoking but the aggressors were all guilty of aggravated assault, at a minimum. Kyle was well within his LEGAL right to defend himself. Furthermore anyone else in the group chasing him should now could/should be brought up on felony murder charges for the two fucksticks that got waxed.

    No moral argument necessary. It's illegal to chase someone. It's super fucking illegal to chase someone with a weapon.
     

    Choid

    Anti Bodyfat Activist
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    4,723
    3,067
    You do realize that using a firearm in self defense isn't limited to defending yourself against others who also have guns. Right?

    You do realize that deadly force includes the use of blunt force weapons (both by design and by improvisation), edged weapons, disparity of force (in strength and/or numbers), and in many places kidnapping and sexual assault.................

    Right?
    Of course I do. Look, you guys are the ones who keep telling me the justice system is rigged against people like Kyle. I am saying his defense, especially on the first shooting, is very tenuous, especially with the strategy his lawyer is taking that he was basically defending himself against theft, but that if the guy had gotten it he was already a felon thus illegal, when the counterpoint is that Kyle couldn't have known his criminal status. It's a bad argument, but it may be the best they have. Given the legal climate, I wouldn't bet on him avoiding jail. Again, that is all I have said, that he is in worse shape legally than morally, and he is likely going to jail.

    Not sure why everybody loves putting words in my mouth when I am very happy to tell you guys what I think.
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    Say No to Puppy & Monkey Torture
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 15, 2020
    1,085
    1,446
    Alabama Slammer
    Legally, it doesn't matter what weapon is used to defend yourself as long as there is an imminent threat of serious bodily injury. The use of force in self-defense is justified under those circumstances as long as you were not the initial aggressor.

    To a Kenosha jury, who the hell knows what matters to them.

    Any force is reasonable to stop an attack that is an imminent threat of serious bodily injury.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: lash

    lonegunman762x51

    Msgt
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Apr 8, 2011
    968
    2,815
    Eastern Washington
    As you watch the persecutors try and formulate a case, you will learn something important about socialist hate of America. They will claim, that no one has the right to defend their own lives, EVER. The leftists will claim that a good citizen should willingly let a communist thug, child molester or drug dealer shot, stab or beat them to death for the "greater good". And that if you did not want to be killed you should have called the cops that they defunded and crippled and asked them to come and save you if they had time.

    They will claim that the weapon Kyle used is somehow far more deadly that the weapons the criminals were using and he had an unfair advantage over his attackers, this rendered his right to self-defense illegal. They will claim he is part of a cabal of evil that in some way compelled him to attack the people trying to kill him.

    At no point will they recognize he had any rights whatsoever, he was simply a sheep in their minds, and deserved to be killed for objecting to the leftist mob.
     

    Choid

    Anti Bodyfat Activist
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    4,723
    3,067
    its held as general knowledge in court and in the field that a citizen trying to disarm another citizen means they are doing so in order to use that firearm against that person. See also every court case where a police officer shoots a suspect trying to disarm them. the reason they are trying to disarm the cop is to shoot him with his own gun.

    so, if someone was trying to disarm Kyle, he had reasonable and probable cause to assume his gun would then be used against him.

    open and shut case, Johnson.
    citizen, citizen, cop. Great argument, Johnson.
     

    DarnYankeeUSMC

    McCarthy Was Right
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Mar 18, 2012
    5,833
    14,098
    In your head
    This thread reads like some still believe in the system.
    The Just-Us system will convict KR and save the cities.
    The facts? We have our truth!! <---- directly from the leaders of the system.
     

    Sean the Nailer

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • May 20, 2006
    5,729
    7,970
    Winnipeg, Mb.
    Not sure what choid is smoking but the aggressors were all guilty of aggravated assault, at a minimum. Kyle was well within his LEGAL right to defend himself. Furthermore anyone else in the group chasing him should now could/should be brought up on felony murder charges for the two fucksticks that got waxed.

    No moral argument necessary. It's illegal to chase someone. It's super fucking illegal to chase someone with a weapon.

    I believe that the word you're looking for is:

    "illegaler"
     

    nso123

    High Speed Steel Stinger
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 20, 2010
    831
    437
    Tennessee
    There is quite a bit of precedent out there regarding self defense. Obviously, Kyle’s actions were self defense that night, but I think there will be some curve balls thrown. The defense will argue that Kyle was faced with several violent assaults and responded in a way that any reasonable person would have responded. That part is pretty cut and dry. The use of force expert will back up the reasonableness of Kyle’s actions. The videos will show that the police did not feel any threat from Kyle or the group he was with that night, and likely show that the rioters were their main concern. These are all good things. Now, the prosecutor will try to force a different angle on the jury. The big thing that will be raised over and over is that Kyle didn‘t have to be there that night. This was not Kyle’s neighborhood. They will say Kyle was looking for trouble. If they get the jury to bite on that angle, they will point out that self defense stops being self defense if you had reasonable knowledge that there would be trouble where you were going. They will say that Kyle should have known that there was a likelihood of something violent taking place that night, and with this knowledge he had an opportunity to not go. This is all going to hinge on how receptive the jury is to either side. In my many, many times in the courtroom, I have learned one thing, and that is the fact that juries are unpredictable. I have seen juries get hung up on the most minor detail, and I have also seen them acquit when there is overwhelming evidence. I think jury selection in this case will likely be the most important part of the trial unless someone one one side is sitting on a bombshell that will completely rock the other side.
     

    Choid

    Anti Bodyfat Activist
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    4,723
    3,067
    Because only people who don’t want to be there should be there.
    Fuck off.
    Who said anything about should, dickface?

    I think Frank likely understood that comment with the tongue in cheek meaning it had.
     

    MtnGhost

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Apr 8, 2019
    323
    431
    There is quite a bit of precedent out there regarding self defense. Obviously, Kyle’s actions were self defense that night, but I think there will be some curve balls thrown. The defense will argue that Kyle was faced with several violent assaults and responded in a way that any reasonable person would have responded. That part is pretty cut and dry. The use of force expert will back up the reasonableness of Kyle’s actions. The videos will show that the police did not feel any threat from Kyle or the group he was with that night, and likely show that the rioters were their main concern. These are all good things. Now, the prosecutor will try to force a different angle on the jury. The big thing that will be raised over and over is that Kyle didn‘t have to be there that night. This was not Kyle’s neighborhood. They will say Kyle was looking for trouble. If they get the jury to bite on that angle, they will point out that self defense stops being self defense if you had reasonable knowledge that there would be trouble where you were going. They will say that Kyle should have known that there was a likelihood of something violent taking place that night, and with this knowledge he had an opportunity to not go. This is all going to hinge on how receptive the jury is to either side. In my many, many times in the courtroom, I have learned one thing, and that is the fact that juries are unpredictable. I have seen juries get hung up on the most minor detail, and I have also seen them acquit when there is overwhelming evidence. I think jury selection in this case will likely be the most important part of the trial unless someone one one side is sitting on a bombshell that will completely rock the other side.
    I think the video evidence that the defense will likely drive forward would be most compelling to a jury. They could easily show that he had strong ties to that neighboring community and cared about it enough to volunteer his time to clean it up (graffiti), and stand shoulder to shoulder with local business owners and citizens to defend property that the rioters were trying to burn down that day.

    The odds of them forming an honest and unbiased jury are nil. There will undoubtedly be one or more of them with motives to convict. Whether they're operating on their own personal beliefs or coerced in some way is impossible to know.
     

    GreenGO Juan

    Private Parts
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    May 27, 2021
    876
    983
    Milky Way Galaxy
    I don’t trust any “publicity trial” in a liberal shit hole. There is not one juror who doesn’t have prior knowledge and is likely going in with their mind already made up.

    In He acted in self defense on video.

    The kid was literally putting out Dumpster Fires that these idiots were pushing towards a gas station!!! So they targeted him.

    How does the drug dealing kid who recently opened fire at a school in texas, shot a fucking teacher get bonded out, and kyle gets stuck in Jail?

    This country is beyond fucked!
     

    Jefe's Dope

    Red Forman
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Dec 20, 2017
    12,844
    106,458
    They will say Kyle was looking for trouble. If they get the jury to bite on that angle, they will point out that self defense stops being self defense if you had reasonable knowledge that there would be trouble where you were going. They will say that Kyle should have known that there was a likelihood of something violent taking place that night, and with this knowledge he had an opportunity to not go.
    That's akin to blaming a woman for getting raped while walking home from a party.

    1. She was "looking for trouble" when she attended a party with alcohol consumption.
    2. Party was near a known date rape frat house.
    3. She knew she would have to walk past this frat house.
    4. She should have just stayed home.

    I'm not buying your argument and I doubt the prosecution would be able to convince anyone of this.
     

    Franko

    Sergeant of the Hide
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    May 19, 2018
    437
    345
    Southern California
    Mr. Rittenhouse's is going to be destroyed to scare the rest of us into keeping our heads down and letting Progressives do what they want. This country's future is that incident in Detroit a week or so ago where an entire subway car full of people let a woman be raped rather than help out because they were afraid to get involved.

    We are all headed to a dark place, hopefully I'll be dead before we get there...
     

    dragman

    Private
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    May 23, 2014
    257
    193
    Apollo, PA
    I think the biggest factor he faces is the gun, his age, and the fact that he was breaking the law by being in that area at that time. Yes from a self defense standpoint i think he was totally justified and if he was an adult law enforcement officer or someone who was permitted to be out past the curfew it would be an easy walk. But he is fighting an uphill battle not coming into this case with "clean hands" Kind of like if a drug dealer is getting robbed by force and defends himself he has the right to do so, but he is still getting his charges for being the dealer.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Kalthoff

    Namekagon

    Oracle of the Hide
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 22, 2018
    455
    688
    Wausau, WI
    For me, The bottom line on this case is one thing...the video shows him RUNNING AWAY from protestor #1 before he turns and shoots. On top of this, protestors 2 and 3 are on video attacking Kyle after he trips.
    I think the biggest factor he faces is the gun, his age, and the fact that he was breaking the law by being in that area at that time. Yes from a self defense standpoint i think he was totally justified and if he was an adult law enforcement officer or someone who was permitted to be out past the curfew it would be an easy walk. But he is fighting an uphill battle not coming into this case with "clean hands" Kind of like if a drug dealer is getting robbed by force and defends himself he has the right to do so, but he is still getting his charges for being the dealer.
    What laws did he break by being there? Genuinely curious.