Summer of 2020---The Civil Unrest Thread--Read OP Before Posting (in memory of George Floyd)

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

Yes im arguing both points cause I dont feel like him being a racist and him acting in self defense in this one particular instance have to be related in the court of law. They should be. But its clear they are not. 

Yeah, it is entirely believable that he went there, expecting to be shooting black folks like a video game. And then he got there and "Holy ****, there's a ****ing riot going on", and was fearing for his life. 
 

He might well have gone there for racist reasons, but his shooting people wasn't. 

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm curious what the jurors think of the judge. Probably will never know, until a few write their books.

[Renegade7]

[tshile]

Not a fan of the prosecutions closing. I think he embellished quite a bit, beyond what the state should do. Maybe that’s what he’s supposed to do, but it just doesn’t feel right reading his description of things.

I mean the prosecutor ends his closing statements with how he put “jump-kick man”‘a life in danger. 
 

get the **** out of here. Dude was kicking him in the head. Who put who’s life in danger? Complete garbage. It’s not even close to representative of what’s going on. I expect that nonsense from the defense, not the state. 

[Yohan]

 

I thought this was a good touch to his presentation...Yes, ADA Binger did use this...Trying to Swayze the jury?

[steve09ru]

Yeah I’m not sure I was have gone that route as a prosecutor.  He basically was saying the fist fight is what should had happened but that gives reasonable doubt as to the mindset of rosenbaum and potential danger that rotten house may have feared after video of him chasing and the threats that were mentioned earlier in trial.  A number of fist fights have ended in death and I think that almost proves he was defending himself of a ‘fist fight’ and potential serious bodily harm.

Edited November 15, 2021 by steve09ru

[tshile]

Prosecutors rebuttal (well, part of it):

 

Quote

Kraus said Rittenhouse should have "exhausted all methods" of self-defense before shooting.

"Punch him in the face, kick him in the testicles, knee him in the face, hit him with your gun," he said. "You don't just immediately get to shoot someone ... It is not reasonable for any adult ... to not try and defend yourself first using other methods."

do what now?

this guy sounds like a moron. 

😂 

earlier in the ADA’s rebuttal

 

Quote

"It certainly cannot be reasonable for someone to be holding an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle with powerful ammunition and be chased by someone who is unarmed who's smaller than him, who's shorter than him and the first thing you do to defend yourself is you plug four rounds into him," said Kraus.

😂 

your brain is wired backwards. What’s unreasonable is being unarmed and chasing down a bigger dude with a rifle 😂 

 

also if you’re gonna prosecute someone on whether they correctly used self defense or not, maybe attend a self defense class. Maybe know a little on the subject. Where did this clowns come from. Those whole prosecution team is a joke. These are the same same guys that let their star witness surprise them while they were asking questions. 

[tshile]

CNN’s live stream says the jurors are yawning and looking around the room, fidgeting and not paying attention. That’s not a good sign if you’re the one speaking. 

[Renegade7]

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

Also..why the **** was the judge sitting there?

[China]

^^^^WTF?

[Llevron]

That’s kinda wild

[tshile]

 

for perspective purposes 

[Yohan]

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

Also..why the **** was the judge sitting there?

He was watching the video that may or may not have show Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum, which would include provocation in the jury instructions. It’s tough to really see anything, even on the big screen 4k TV in the courtroom, but I sure a lot tougher from the judges seat.

[The Evil Genius]

I just sat as a juror in a criminal trial a few months  ago. No one had problems seeing video or any other exhibit in the trial room. 

 

Granted not all rooms are the same, but that's insane that the judge had to move to see something that he has already reviewed pre trial. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by The Evil Genius

[Destino]

This trial is a circus.  The prosecutors arguments are absurd and the judge is Kyle’s most effective and dedicated defender.  

[CjSuAvE22]

 

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

I just sat as a juror in a criminal trial a few months  ago. No one had problems seeing video or any other exhibit in the trial room. 

 

Granted not all rooms are the same, but that's insane that the judge had to move to see something that he has already reviewed pre trial. 

In this instance the prosecution insisted that their 4k tv would show everything clean and and clear, the judge may have not seen the video on the TV they used which was an LG OLED 4k TV in the pre trial so he said he wanted to see on their tv, when the evidence is a blur of pixels thats extremely hard to see anything the judge was invited to sit up close to see it because, what the prosecution wanted the judge to instruct the jury on was the provocation element of reckless homicide, the defense objected to that because they said there wasn't sufficient evidence for provocation leading up to this point, after viewing the prosecutions video in the end the judge said he would leave it up to the jury to decide and allowed the provocation stipulation, the tweet in the previous replies to this thread has no context and is just opinion about a picture again without context "I have never seen blah blah blah" its the problem with twitter people can say whatever they want but whatever thats not a subject of this chat. 

This trial is over theres almost zero evidence to prove that Rittenhouse didn't act in self defense and definitely not enough to prove reckless homicide its a situation where the DA's office thought they could take advantage of the state of the country at the current time and over charge him they had no eyewitness testimony their main piece of evidence was a pixelated photo which in their eyes was provocation showing Rittenhouse pointing his gun at people after their entire case began to fall apart mid trial, we need to move on to the other trial of Mr. Arbery, which I think has sufficient evidence to prove murder, but then this thread probably wouldn't get much action since I think we all agree that that was murder.

 

Also on the gun possession charge the judge offered the prosecution to measure to see if the gun met the requirements of the penal code, they didn't dispute that it did not meet the requirements of the law to be illegal and the judge dismissed the charge, which is really a trivial thing he was only facing up to 9 months in prison on this charge and he is a first time offender so I assume he would have gotten a suspended sentence on that had he been found guilty its actually worse to be caught driving drunk in Wisconsin, I think its better for the jury to focus on the reckless homicides which I don't think he will be convicted of anyway and then even in that instance the misdemeanors would have been dismissed as well in all likelihood. 

[China]

I'll take run-on sentences for $1000 Alex.

[Burgold]

Justice may be blind, but apparently it's not color blind.

 

A person who traveled to another state in the hopes of shooting someone and then proceeded to kill multiple people has been found not guilty. There may have been a legal case for self defense, but Rittenhouse is as guilty as OJ.

[tshile]

He hasn’t been found not guilty. Have they even started deliberating?

 

and the rest of that is nonsense. If it was self defense then he’s not guilty of anything. 

[Burgold]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

He hasn’t been found not guilty. Have they even started deliberating?

 

and the rest of that is nonsense. If it was self defense then he’s not guilty of anything. 

Ah. Fooled by Twitter.

 

I don't know @tshile. Sometimes, juries get it wrong. Sometimes, the law gets it wrong too. I can justify a legal excuse for Rittenhouse, but he still committed murder and came with the intent to commit murder even if by the letter of the law he's innocent. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that OJ is guilty even though he was found not guilty.

 

Besides, in my mind, you can't go looking for a fight, declare you're there for a fight, and come armed for a fight and then scream self defense because you got in a fight.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Burgold

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Ah. Fooled by Twitter.

 

I don't know @tshile. Sometimes, juries get it wrong. Sometimes, the law gets it wrong too. I can justify a legal excuse for Rittenhouse, but he still committed murder and came with the intent to commit murder even if by the letter of the law he's innocent. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that OJ is guilty even though he was found not guilty.

 

Besides, in my mind, you can't go looking for a fight, declare you're there for a fight, and come armed for a fight and then scream self defense because you got in a fight.

 

yeah and I get theres lots of videos out there to support that. There’s also videos of him removing graffiti. And baring some new video we haven’t seen yet showing a different story - the best one we have evidence for as they his grand gesture of looking for a fight was that he grabbed a fire extinguisher to put out a fire because people were burning up cars and buildings. 
 

and for some reason no one on your side seems to care that no one else was supposed to be there. Or that the government decided to not do anything about the riots (which was a result of public pressure from the pro-BLM people. ) or that people are/were traveling from all over to join these riots. 

 

there’s a lot going on here and a lot of places to find fault. But you’ve managed to weave your way into this very specific view. 🤷‍♂️ 

 

I have an issue with him being there. And you guys keep saying out of state but that doesn’t even matter; none of them should have been there regardless of where they’re from. But that’s the only issue I have. And I think your crafted quite a one-sided narrative on it all. 

I mean I can play the if game too all day with this case. 
 

if the government actually protected the towns/cities, there wouldn’t be civilians deciding they needed to do it. 

if the BLM rioters/protestors weren’t trying to burn down buildings, he wouldnt have put out the fire. 
he victim number one doesn’t try to chase him down to obviously beat him, there isn’t isn’t a first shot. 
if victim #2 and victim #3 don’t decide to be vigilantes and chase down what they think is an active shooter, then use a skateboard and handgun against him, they don’t get shot. 
 

it’s a messy situation. I find it fitting what parts you choose to care about and which ones you don’t. 
 

your general rants against gun ownership and hatred for the ar-15 certainly appear contribute.

 

have you once criticized a single person involved that attacked him? Just curious. 

[Burgold]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

and for some reason no one on your side seems to care that no one else was supposed to be there.

Here's the rub. I'm for protest. I'm for neighbors and neighborhoods lodging their complaint, marching, shouting, and exercising their freedom of speech. So, I'm okay with protestors from that neighborhood being there.  I'll concede it gets murkier when you say, "Well, then are you okay with protestors congregating to march outside their neighborhood" because I'm okay with that, too.

 

So, I'm okay with the people who were marching against police abuse in their own neighborhood or state.

 

I guess my narrative would be different if Rittenhouse came to counterprotest.  I have defended all sorts of people excersing their freedom of speech even when they espouse things I don't support, but that's not what he came to do. According to his own video testimony that he recorded prior to going... He was going to with the hopes of shooting people. He was going as a vigilante.

 

So, there's the difference. 

 

Now, I'm with you if you say that violence is not free speech and as soon as it turned violent those rioters and looters should have been arrested, but Rittenhouse was not there to be a shield. Whether he realized it or not, he was there to be a lit match.

[PartyPosse]

20 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

have you once criticized a single person involved that attacked him? Just curious. 

You mean the dead people?

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Now, I'm with you if you say that violence is not free speech and as soon as it turned violent those rioters and looters should have been arrested, but Rittenhouse was not there to be a shield. Whether he realized it or not, he was there to be a lit match.

Well and my gripe is with the government. This did not occur in a vacuum. 
 

this was part of a long series of events where protests turned into riots, which turned into full displayed of militarized police, which turned into public backlash about said militarized police, which turned in government deciding the police will sit on the sidelines, which turned into citizens gathering to protect property 

 

(which it should be noted there are videos of the “guards” (citizens that showed up to protect buildings, I guess they dubbed themselves guards…) actually chanting with the BLM protestors and having a good time with them and saying things along the lines of “no lives matter until Black Lives Matter”. So I think the idea of protest vs rioting is recognized on all sides, and you can find different videos to paint different pictures. Etc.)

 

all of which stated because of a completely botched response to racism and police brutality by government across the board. 
 

they declared a little war zone and let tons of people congregate, people clearly carrying and displaying weapons, people clearly destroying and looting, and they said they weren’t going to do anything about it. 
 

To me the outcome is expected. And the blame is on the government deciding they won’t protect businesses and property. 
 

and now they want to a blame rittenhouse for the powder keg they built and lit. 
 

and they want to do it by putting an ADA up there to recite some of the dumbest bs we hear from people with no clue when it comes to self defense:

he should have kicked him in the testicles instead

or knee him in the face

I’m surprised he didn’t throw “why didn’t he just shoot him in the leg?!?!?” Out there. 
 

this whole situation is ****ed. And all I see from most people are the standard retreating to their own trenches. 

15 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

You mean the dead people?

Oh so you’re not actually aware of the attacks. Got it.