Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

That direction by the judge is not consistent with the law on the books. For Rittenhouse to have possession of the weapon he would have required approval by his legal guardian, not his "friend" who furnished the weapon. He also would have to have been accompanied by his legal guardian while in possession of the rifle. Neither condition existed.

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.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Living in Cape Breton?

What the f*** did I just miss here?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

What the f*** did I just miss here?

I made the mistake of mentioning that the wife and I were considering moving to Cape Breton.

[Lanny_McDonald]

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.

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.

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.

[btimbit]

People are arguing with their hearts but not their heads.

Obviously, it'd be better if nobody was there, nobody was armed, and the police did their job so people didn't think they had to get armed militia's to defend their businesses. Or even better, if the police didn't shoot an unarmed black man and set this whole thing off in the first place.

But all of that did happen, and being there was legal, and being there armed was legal, so you can't really sit there and argue that he shouldn't have been there.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

What the f*** did I just miss here?

https://www.mpamag.com/ca/news/gener...n-paper/286454

There was a story a year or so back about Nazi sympathizers/white supremacists setting up shop in Cape Breton. My bad, thought that was more common knowledge.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by btimbit

People are arguing with their hearts but not their heads.

Obviously, it'd be better if nobody was there, nobody was armed, and the police did their job so people didn't think they had to get armed militia's to defend their businesses. Or even better, if the police didn't shoot an unarmed black man and set this whole thing off in the first place.

But all of that did happen, and being there was legal, and being there armed was legal, so you can't really sit there and argue that he shouldn't have been there.

Any level of decency and common sense in any stable, democratic society says he shouldn't have been there like that. But I guess I begrudgingly agree that in that ****ed up country we have to respect that people can do unbelievable things with guns....if they're WHITE ONLY.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Any level of decency and common sense in any stable, democratic society says he shouldn't have been there like that. But I guess I begrudgingly agree that in that ****ed up country we have to respect that he people can do unbelievable things with guns....if they're WHITE ONLY.

That's just it, we're looking at this from the eyes of Canadians. Of course, it seems ridiculous to us, and if it happened here I would hope everyone involved would die in jail. If it happened here it would be illegal, but it happened in a place where things like that are more or less fine. It's ####ed, but it's legal

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by btimbit

That's just it, we're looking at this from the eyes of Canadians. Of course, it seems ridiculous to us, and if it happened here I would hope everyone involved would die in jail. If it happened here it would be illegal, but it happened in a place where things like that are more or less fine. It's ####ed, but it's legal

...for white people.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by jayswin

...for white people.

Land of the free indeed

[Lanny_McDonald]

I would argue the second it escalated beyond a peaceful display of 1st amendment rights, and became a riot, it was no longer legal. At that point people should have engaged their heads and got the hell out of there. Especially the ones with guns - both Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz. Nothing good can come from having guns in a chaotic environment.

I'm pro 2nd amendment and gun ownership. But I believe there is a responsibility and limitations on what you can do with weapons. I believe you can have them for personal protection, but only sidearms. That should extend only to your home, or only to individuals who are CCW holders and have been through the mandatory classroom and field training/qualification shoot. If you are a CCW holder you are programmed to really think long and hard about pulling your weapon, and you understand the weight of the outcomes for unholstering your sidearm. Long rifles should never be allowed for personal protection as the power of the round is not meant to incapacitate, but only kill. And once that round is down range you have no idea how many soft targets it will go through until it hits something solid to remove the expended energy of the discharge. AR-15/AR-10s are killing machines. They have no purpose other than on the practice range, or on the field of war.

[btimbit]

I love guns, own over 10, but I am firmly against using them for any sort of self-defence. They're just the wrong tool for that job and I think any kind of public carry, open or concealed, is just insane

[Mayer]

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.

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.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

https://www.mpamag.com/ca/news/gener...n-paper/286454

There was a story a year or so back about Nazi sympathizers/white supremacists setting up shop in Cape Breton. My bad, thought that was more common knowledge.

I totally forgot about that. Community here did a collective WTF and I haven't heard tell of them since.

Regardless, not to derail the thread.

Child with a boom stick makes humans meet Petey the gatekeeper... proceed

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mayer

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.

Come on, you can't be serious. The independent journalist McGuinnis even stated, "The way he was describing what his role was, seemed very detached from the way he was being perceived. And that's what I mean when I say he seemed very naive."

His "job" was not to protect anything or provide medical attention. He was not trained nor capable of doing either. He was a high school student, not a trained individual in emergency medicine, or a trained professional in physical security or protective services.

His calls for "anyone need medical" are completely ignored by the crowd, and for good reason. Again, no evidence of him providing medical assistance to anyone exists, because he didn't, nor was capable of doing so.

Lt. Gov Barnes comments rang true. "Rittenhouse was from out of state. Who was he accountable to? Nobody." He had no right to be there any more than Proud Boys from out of state should be in Portland making a mess of those protests and causing civil unrest.

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.

An FTF is unlikely to eject an unspent round. The FTF on the AR15 usually is a result of a round hanging in the magazine and not making it into the chamber. Pulling back on the charging handle and hitting the bolt release will normally chamber a round. No ejection of anything, so there would be nothing to pick up. Defense was counting on people on the jury not understanding how the weapons platform works and falling for a red herring.

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.

Grosskreutz's first testimony was while he was in recovery after surgery, so that can explain the variation in his story. Yes, the variation is concerning, but it is consistent with the video and stills, especially if you've been through weapons training. But we should discount what the victim says and instead believe the accused, even though he has been less than truthful himself through out this whole mess, including on the video source you provided above?

[Knightslayer]

Parts of America are honestly worse than 3rd world countries I've visited.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Knightslayer

Parts of America are honestly worse than 3rd world countries I've visited.

Agreed……..I guess that validates all the weapons…….

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by btimbit

People are arguing with their hearts but not their heads.

Originally Posted by btimbit

Or even better, if the police didn't shoot an unarmed black man and set this whole thing off in the first place.

Video shows him with a knife. The police can be heard yelling for him to drop it. The knife was found where you would expect it to be found. And most importantly Jacob Blake has confirmed he had a knife in his hand when shot. But somehow this myth persists.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

If I'm jogging down the street and people start chasing me, that makes sense to be self-defence.

If I arm myself up and go to confront a bunch of people and then run away, it's a different situation.

And if it's not, it's the law that is messed up.

The whole idea of self defence rests on imminent threat. If you’re holding a knife to me, and then turn and run away, I can’t shoot you in the back when you’re 20 yards away and claim self defence.

It’s the same standard for everyone, I don’t know how you feel the law is messed up? Let’s say you’re at the bar and get into a confrontation, and you threaten to kill the other guy. If you’re walking out the door to leave, you can’t be shot in self defence if the guys at the pool table.

But if you’re walking down an alley and see the other guy and you start chasing him through the alley? Yeah. I have zero issue at all with you being shot when you corner him. because that’s self defence. That fact that you were in some sort of altercation beforehand does not remove the right to self defence.

Otherwise, what’s your alternative? That young kid who was beat to death behind a bar a few years ago, he was in an altercation with the murderers earlier in the night. No one could possible argue he should have been denied the right to self defence. And again, it can’t hinge on your idea of a weapon, because that’s not how the world works. Unless you’re seriously suggesting that anyone with a gun is an imminent threat and subject to being shot on the spot.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by btimbit

That's just it, we're looking at this from the eyes of Canadians. Of course, it seems ridiculous to us, and if it happened here I would hope everyone involved would die in jail. If it happened here it would be illegal, but it happened in a place where things like that are more or less fine. It's ####ed, but it's legal

The police were encouraging militias armed with assault rifles to guard property during a full blown riot. I'm quite frankly surprised more aren't dead. I'm sure there were many people who were just as dumb as Rittenhouse in that crowd. The bar to getting a very dangerous weapon there is very low, or even non-existent.