Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

There was no conclusive evidence that Blake had a knife on him outside of the vehicle. NONE. You have a blob-squatch screen capture that YOU have interpreted as a knife (just like Mel did). It could have been anything including his cellphone. Again, of seven officers on the scene, not one will backup what the one who called for a knife. NOT ONE.

Am I crazy? Okay so you don't believe that page 8 of this document is proof:

https://www.kenoshacounty.org/Docume...of-Jacob-Blake

Fair enough. But when Blake, you know the dead guy who got shot and came back from the dead apparently, confirmed he had a knife, why is there an argument? You don't believe Jacob Blake when he tells you he has a knife? Why? If Blake said it was his cellphone, sure maybe we can make the case it wasn't conclusive but when he says it was a knife, I'll take his word for it lol.

All the rest of blaming the Black woman as being a liar without any evidence other than her refusing to talk to investigators after her fiance was shot and she made international news. Let's see these "lies after lies" she said. Right now all she did was what most domestic violence victims do.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Working in law enforcement for almost 12 years made me very aware of the games people play and how people with axes to grind will try and use the law and law enforcement to their advantage.

Ah, someone in law enforcement does not believe Black people. Why am I not surprised?

Booker characterized herself as Blake's fiance the day after the shooting. They clearly had an abusive dysfunctional relationship but this was not a case of her trying to get back at her ex. I mean as PepsiFree already said, she was allowing him to knowingly break the court order.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Just saw a pic of Rittenhouse posing with the judge.

No chance we get the rightful conviction.

Care to share that picture? I can't find it anywhere.

I'm assuming you're not speaking of the image of Rittenhouse standing behind the Judge while they were both getting a closer look at some video?



Apologies, I don't know how to make that smaller.

[Knightslayer]

Still looks weird and could prejudice the jury.

[OptimalTates]

Officer Sheskey stated that Jacob Blake was now walking
towards the front of the SUV. Officer Sheskey continued to yell for Jacob Blake to drop the
knife; however, Jacob Blake continued to ignore the commands. As Jacob Blake turned left
in front of the vehicle, Officer Sheskey first saw the black knife in Jacob Blake’s left hand.

During the period of time in the video when Jacob Blake is walking around the front of the
SUV and approaching the driver’s side door, a male voice can be heard yelling, “Drop the
knife!” at least two times

As Officer Meronek engaged Jacob Blake, she observed that Jacob
Blake had a knife. Officer Meronek said that she yelled out to alert the other officers, “Knife!
Knife! He has a knife!”

Officer Meronek stated that the blade on the knife was extended out.
Officer Meronek stated that the three officers all stepped back towards the sidewalk along
28th Avenue to distance themselves from Jacob Blake as they drew their firearms. The
officers then all began yelling the commands, “Drop the knife and show us your hands.”
Jacob Blake did not comply with or acknowledge the commands.

At that time, Officer Arenas heard Officer
Meronek say, “He’s got a knife.” Officer Arenas said that he then observed the knife in what
he believed was Jacob Blake’s left hand near his groin area. Officer Arenas indicated that
the blade of the knife was open.

Jacob Blake stated that he had a knife in his possession and he dropped it on the ground
near the vehicle but he believes that the police did not see him dropping the knife. The
officers approached him and put their hands on him, and he just wanted to leave the area
with his kids. The officers tased him at least two times while he was trying to leave, but he
just tore out the wires and recalls that at some point he was tackled to the ground. He got up
and picked up his knife again. He wanted to put his knife away in the car because he said
the knife was a gift given to him and it meant a lot to him and he did not want to lose it. He
described his knife as a "Bear Claw."

Sheskey was the officer who shot. Meronek saw the knife before Sheskey and Arenas confirmed. And then, most importantly, Jacob Blake did as well.

I mean why is this an argument outside of some weird ego-trip?

#### it Mr. Champion of Facts, I'm just going to say Kyle Rittenhouse didn't shoot anyone that night lol. I don't care if he says he did. Just like Blake he is lying.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

I would prefer not to watch the video again but I do recall the shots were more parallel to the vehicle instead of into it. I could be mistaken though. I think it was very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the officers. They tried all they could, including less than lethal force with a taser and literally ripping his shirt off and then they either had to let him take the car and the kids on a high speed pursuit or endanger them with a knife. I don't think this was at all like a Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Elijah McClain or even a Rayshard Brooks situation. Blake is the one to blame.

To your last point, I think you're absolutely correct. I mean even Ms. Booker noted it saying how she didn't want to call police at all in her 911 call. But probably the worst thing we can do to domestic abuse victims is pull a Lanny_McDonald and call them compulsive liars for no reason because now even if things do work out for them they are still villainized. I wonder if she was white with the name Jane Smith if she would be called a liar and extortionist with no proof or is it just because she is named Laquisha?

Watched the video for the first time, and it looks pretty reckless to me. The officer has one hand on Blake and is pulling backwards and one hand on his gun that he is firing. What if Blake had lunged and knocked the officer? What if the officer had fallen off balance? What if the kickback from the gun caused the gun to slip in his hands?

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by blankall

Watched the video for the first time, and it looks pretty reckless to me. The officer has one hand on Blake and is pulling backwards and one hand on his gun that he is firing. What if Blake had lunged and knocked the officer? What if the officer had fallen off balance? What if the kickback from the gun caused the gun to slip in his hands?

I'll take your word for it, but I mean it does not excuse Blake from simply complying and dropping his knife.

The other what ifs playing in the officer's mind are probably what if he harms the children? What if he crashes the car with them in the vehicle? I still think there's one person to blame for that situation.

[CaptainCrunch]

I have a simplified opinion of this whole thing.

There should not have been riots, that's a failure of lawful authority. Rittenhouse had no right to cross statelines and appear at the riots with a fire arm. Self defense or not, he created the circumstance that caused the actions that night. His $$$$$$$$ mother should not have taken him there.

Now, its likely that because of the actions that night, that Rittenhouse in this trial, well it feels like his case meets the requirements of self defense. The Judge dismissed the lessor weapons charges.

I expect that Rittenhouse will be freed, I also expect that the prosecutors will appeal based on perceived Judge misconduct and we'll be debating this again next year.

I think I've been pretty clear that I'm anti-gun in civillian hands. I mean hunting fine, I'd prefer that the law removed the right to full semi automatic magazine fed access. Not to be funny, but I firmly believe that the only rifles people should be able to carry are revolutionary war black powder guns that use ball ammo.

The prosecution did a horrible job, they put themselves in a corner and then later tried to amend the charges, and the judge dismissed that attempt to do so.

I expect that there will be a lot of anger if this kid gets off, its sad that everyone of these trials requires a call out of the National Guard. I think people have forgotten what the justice system is for, and how it works. There's an expectation that the justice system should be revenge based instead of based on a strict interpretation of the law vs the action of the person on trial.

If Rittenhouse is released, its going to be crowed as a major victory for gun nuts, and be greeted by rage on the other side.

If he's convicted, its the opposite.

Everyone loses no matter what.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I find it hard to wrap my head around the possibility that a kid can take a gun to a riot/protest, kill two people, and then walk free.

It just feels absolutely wrong.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I find it hard to wrap my head around the possibility that a kid can take a gun to a riot/protest, kill two people, and then walk free.

It just feels absolutely wrong.

This is because you are Canadian.
Wisconsin is an open carry state, where you require a permit to purchase a handgun but not a rifle (long gun). So no permit to purchase or carry an 'assault style' semi automatic rifle (like Rittenhouse carried). The 'restrictions' on carrying fully automatic weapons state "Machine guns may not shoot pistol cartridges and may not be possessed aggressively or offensively."

In these circumstances it's a bit less surprising.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

This is because you are Canadian.
Wisconsin is an open carry state, where you require a permit to purchase a handgun but not a rifle (long gun). So no permit to purchase or carry an 'assault style' semi automatic rifle (like Rittenhouse carried). The 'restrictions' on carrying fully automatic weapons state "Machine guns may not shoot pistol cartridges and may not be possessed aggressively or offensively."

In these circumstances it's a bit less surprising.

Well… Canadians, and people from any other first world country.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Just saw a pic of Rittenhouse posing with the judge.

No chance we get the rightful conviction.

Please share?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Please share?

It's a few posts up.

I think it's really unusual that a judge would be viewing evidence that close to a defendant on trial for murder. It's definitely bad for optics.

[fulham]

1. He shouldn't of been there.
2. A crazy mentally unstable rapist attacked him, he rightfully defended himself.
3. I cant imagine how most kids would react to the other two incidents especially being chased by a dude with a gun, right after having to kill someone in self defence and being scared #####less.
4. Again if you're a kid with a gun at a protest, lots of critical thinking clearly hasn't happened, and what exactly did he expect to happen.
5. Pettersson is overrated.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Am I crazy? Okay so you don't believe that page 8 of this document is proof:

https://www.kenoshacounty.org/Docume...of-Jacob-Blake

No, it's supposition to build a case. This is the body of evidence they have to document to make their case. The problem is the testimony of the other officers blows a hole in this supposition, which is why it held no water. When you have one guy say something, and then are able to call the other six responders and ask them if they saw a knife, it completely discredits the one guy who said he saw the knife. And then when you trot out this digital image, all it takes is someone with minor skills in digital imaging to blow this out of the water as well. How was the image captured? How was it filtered? How was the sharpening done? What is there so little detail in the image? Why did the other officers NOT see this? The only time anyone could confirm the existence of the knife is from the floorboard of the interior of the SUV. A defense attorney with even the lowest level of experience would rip this to shreds. Supposition does not make a case.

Fair enough. But when Blake, you know the dead guy who got shot and came back from the dead apparently, confirmed he had a knife, why is there an argument? You don't believe Jacob Blake when he tells you he has a knife? Why? If Blake said it was his cellphone, sure maybe we can make the case it wasn't conclusive but when he says it was a knife, I'll take his word for it lol.

No one is denying he had a knife. Blake admitted he had a knife... in the SUV. Blake has denied he had a knife during his altercation with officers, and has repeatedly stated he would not draw a knife on the police. So we have six cops who said no knife. Jacob Blake saying he had no knife on him during the wrestling match, but acknowledging he had one on the vehicle. But you got one cop (no backup) and a blurry innocuous screen shot from a video shot at a distance, and this is what you hang your hat on? Good thing you're not a cop or an attorney, because you'd be unemployed pretty quickly, as your supposition doesn't hold water.

All the rest of blaming the Black woman as being a liar without any evidence other than her refusing to talk to investigators after her fiance was shot and she made international news. Let's see these "lies after lies" she said. Right now all she did was what most domestic violence victims do.

It's not blaming black women, even though you're doing your best to try and turn this into something it isn't. It's blaming someone who lied to the police multiple times. She lied about the stolen credit card and the $500 withdrawls. They were quickly tracked back to her. She lied about the sexual assault. Again, you are ignoring the fact that her live-in aunt refused to give testimony to support her claims.

Keep trying to dodge all of this testimony, but it is what makes cases. Without hard evidence you need to have eye witness support. Those did not exist. The six cops refused to testify to the existence of the knife. The aunt refused to testify to the assault. The witnesses completely destroyed the supposition of the case the DA tried to build. But continue to believe the house of cards that quickly came crashing down, and ignoring the witness testimony that burned that house of cards to ash. The results are damning and consistent with the facts presented.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I find it hard to wrap my head around the possibility that a kid can take a gun to a riot/protest, kill two people, and then walk free.

It just feels absolutely wrong.

If this were a war, those guys who chased and confronted Rittenhouse would have been commended. Rittenhouse looks like a forking school shooter.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mayer

NSFW!

That image looks to me like they are watching video evidence. I don't think this is a pose between the judge and the accused. It is a court room photo showing the proceedings in action. No harm, no foul.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's a few posts up.

I think it's really unusual that a judge would be viewing evidence that close to a defendant on trial for murder. It's definitely bad for optics.

Yes, I believe Lanny is correct. They were viewing footage on a screen presented by the prosecution during Rittenhouse' testimony. They needed to position a tv screen so everyone could see what the prosecution was showing, the jury, the lawyers and of course the defendant whom the prosecution was questioning about the footage. There was absolutely nothing nefarious about what happened.

[Knightslayer]

There is 0 chance Rittenhouse gets convicted and even if he is there will be a successful appeal as there are so many errors being committed that's even obvious to a lay person.

I honestly think this prosecutor may really be the worst prosecutor in all of America and I sometimes wonder if he's purposely throwing the case or he really is that bad of a prosecutor.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's a few posts up.

I think it's really unusual that a judge would be viewing evidence that close to a defendant on trial for murder. It's definitely bad for optics.

I’m giving MG benefit of the doubt. There’s no way an otherwise reasonable person would consider that ‘posing’. Suggesting their proximity indicates impropriety is grasping at straws, at best.