Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
His legal guardian resides in Illinois. His residence is in Illinois. His reason for going to the protests is extremely important as it can determine intent and motive for his actions and would bring into question the self defense narrative his counsel is spinning. The last comment was coming from what was reported in the media. Can you link to a video of this aid he was providing? I have not seen anything like this. Rittenhouse was a 17 year old kid who had no EMT training, so suggesting he was providing EMT services on site sounds like defense team voodoo.
|
Defence doesn't need to "spin" the self-defence argument. It's all over the hours of video that have been submitted as evidence. It's pretty clear and if his intent was to go down and shoot some rioters, then he wouldn't have been running away. As I've said, dumb decision to go in the first place but the State hasn't provided any evidence or testimony that speaks to their fantasy that he intended to go kill some rioters.
https://youtu.be/DpDZJ_dPxYo
At about the 1 minute mark it shows clips of him asking if anyone needs medical. There are also several other videos from different sources and from various time periods throughout the night.
Quote:
Predominantly NPR and the Washington Post. Sorry, I don't read Breitbart.
From NPR and testimony directly from the trial.
"Grosskreutz had drawn his gun, holding the pistol in his right hand and his cellphone in his left. He testified that he did not draw the gun "with the express intent of using it" but rather to be "ready" if he felt that it was necessary."
"Video evidence shows Grosskreutz stopping and raising his hands, his pistol pointing in the air. Grosskreutz testified that he saw Rittenhouse re-rack his rifle to load a new round into the chamber."
This is where Grosskreutz reported that Rittenhouse had an FTF, causing him him to pull back on the charging handle. Rittenhouse had already made the conscious decision to shoot Grosskreutz and the only thing that saved him was the mechanical failure. This is where Grosskreutz elected to attempt to wrestle the gun from Rittenhouse.
"In that moment, I felt that I had to do something to try to prevent myself from being killed or being shot," Grosskreutz testified. "I decided the best course of action would be to close the distance between the defendant and I, and from there, I don't know ... wrestling the gun, detaining the defendant, I don't know ... I do know that I was never trying to kill the defendant."
This is where Grosskreutz's hands drop and he advances, giving the appearance of the gun being pointed at Rittenhouse. The frame from the video grab that the defense asked questions of is from this moment. You can clearly see that Grosskreutz's left hand is closing in to rifle, but the discharge had already taken place, removing 90% of Grosskreutz's bicep. And yes, I acknowledge, as does Grosskreutz, that he answered positive to two of the defense team's questions as they were framed. What is lost in those questions is the context, which this testimony provided. The FTF was the key factor in there being a survivor to testify in this trial.
|
Here's the problem, though. With all the hours of video footage of this event, no footage shows Rittenhouse re-racking his rifle after a misfire. Grosskreutz was the only person who testified that he saw that, however, the Crime scene unit found no unspent rounds at the scene, which would be there if what Grosskreutz testified to happened. Is it possible someone picked up that round in all the chaos? Possible, I suppose, but again, no video footage. Defence was smart in bringing this up and calling the officer who seized the exhibits onto the stand.
It's also hard to trust anything Grosskreutz says at this point. His interviews since his testimony have been very different than what he said on the stand. I suppose even he knew he couldn't lie under oath.