Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
He testified that his father lives in Kenosha and he spends a lot of his time there as a result. It could be argued in that sense that it IS his community and he wanted to help if he could. Obviously a 17 year old doesn't own property anywhere but that alone doesn't mean he doesn't take pride in that community. Regardless, his motive for going to the riots is irrelevant as his lawyers are arguing self defence. Again, if the Prosecutors argue provocation, it will be on the question of whether the "chase" was because he pointed his gun at someone...not because he should not have been there in the first place.
Lastly, there are videos of Rittenhouse offering first aid to several different people. I'm not sure where your last comment is coming from.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403
Lanny where on earth are you getting your information from? I am genuinely curious.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
The legal guardian oversight only applies to persons under 16 years old.
The dangerous weapon statute prohibiting persons under 18 from owning a dangerous weapon specifically has an exception (3c) for long barrelled rifles that isn't being used for hunting.
|
This whole "hunting" angle is bull####. He was not hunting any more than someone going to Red Lobster is fishing. Nor was he target practicing. He was carrying the weapon into a protest. Unless he was "hunting" protesters, or using those protesters for "target practice" neither of these caveats to the restrictions is relevant. People are going out of their way make excuses for this kid. He made conscious decisions that he has to answer for. Just like every other person at those protests turned riots, they all have something to answer for. I don't care what side of this argument you are on, if you were at one of these events and you did something that was beyond peacefully expressing your 1st amendment right, you have something to answer for. Rittenhouse went out of his way to engage in this mayhem and just escalated things even more. Two people that engaged him met the ultimate price and one other is maimed for life. Rittenhouse deserves to answer for his conscious decisions.