Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's not a left or right issue. Probably at least half the people in this thread being critical of Rittenhouse and stupid gun laws are right-leaning or centrist based on their posting history on other topics.

I understand why he is likely going to be found not guilty and don't totally disagree with the logic, but there are numerous reasons that he can also be fairly criticized for the events that unfolded.

Disagree. A lot of people , on both the left and right, mostly the left, are starting with the conclusion here. Rittenhouse is a dopey, trump loving idiot I'd want nothing to do with in my own personal life. But that doesn't make him guilty. This is as far as a lot of the left has thought this case thru.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well apparently they sat on their porches defending their property as opposed to wading through the crowd looking for trouble.

I think thats more in the spirit of 'defending.'

Rittenhouse had been at a gas station with a bunch of other militia guys when they told him he was needed (in their opinion) somewhere else. He was going from the one location to the other when he got into the conflict.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Weird how it's the guy who killed a bunch of people getting the focus.

Some people are claiming that being on the streets in Kenosha with a firearm that night was itself proof of malign intent. If that’s the case, a lot more people than Rittenhouse should be denounced.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Rittenhouse had been at a gas station with a bunch of other militia guys when they told him he was needed (in their opinion) somewhere else. He was going from the one location to the other when he got into the conflict.

Ya, I don't understand this idea that he was "wading through the crowd looking for trouble". It's simply not aligned with the facts, both from video and from multiple witness testimonies.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

What about Grosskreutz? Haven't seen much criticism of a guy who showed up to a riot with a gun.

Interesting. The usual suspects normally complain about "whataboutism" but here we are, whatabout Grosskreutz?

Okay, what about him? He actually legally owned the weapon he was carrying, was legally allowed to carry the weapon, and was training to carry said weapon. The only thing that Grosskreutz was guilty of was allowing his permit to lapse, which is a very common condition because permits have a five year cycle. Grosskreutz was also an EMT and was there to tend to the injured, which he did and was documented on that evening. Grosskreutz was also shown to be approaching the accused with the gun in his hand, but his hands raised and not in a position to shoot. Grosskreutz was actually shot while attempting to grab the barrel of Rittenhouse's AR15, and not in a firing position with his weapon. If Grosskreutz was intent on shooting Rittenhouse, he would have taken a shooting position, just as his training and certification would have taught him.

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Only because, in the cast of Grosskreutz he shot first.

Grosskreutz was never going to shoot, nor a threat to shoot. This is a guy that was schooled in how to put rounds down range. He was also abundantly aware of his responsibility of every round that left the barrel being his responsibility, self-defense or not. Hence him not using his weapon on a crowded street that was clearly a mess. As a CCW holder, you are trained not to put a round down range unless you are certain you are going to hit your target, because you are responsible for wayward rounds. Miss your target and hit a bystander, that's murder. My instructor had some very somber words for the class. If you think you're going to miss your target, don't pull the trigger. If you're going to put a round down range, make sure it hits its mark, then empty the magazine in your target. I thought he was joking at the time when he said, "Dead men can't testify against you at your self defense trial," but this trial shows there was a lot of truth in his words.

You guys are letting your politics and opinions of gun laws get in the way of objectivity.

Glasshouses.

The guy that was shot, by the person who illegally possessed a weapon according to Wisconsin's gun laws, is now the bad guy?

[White Out 403]

That's a remarkable interpretation of Grosskreutz and his testimony. Testimony so bad the prosecution face palmed when he admitted to being the one who was the aggressor, and arguably can be pinned down as the reason why the prosecution is now going after lesser charges.

That's the witness you want to hang your hat on?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

That's a remarkable interpretation of Grosskreutz and his testimony. Testimony so bad the prosecution face palmed when he admitted to being the one who was the aggressor, and arguably can be pinned down as the reason why the prosecution is now going after lesser charges.

That's the witness you want to hang your hat on?

I didn’t watch the whole thing, but read that the lawyer was like that most of the time. Default position. Just looks hilarious in the clip that everyone has seen. Not exactly proof of anything.

[blankall]

If Grosskreutz was carrying a weapon with an expired permit, that still makes it illegal. It's the exact same charge as if he'd never had the permit.

I'm hoping that the prosecution finds some kind of lesser offence here that will keep Rittenhouse away from guns for the rest of his life.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Rittenhouse had been at a gas station with a bunch of other militia guys when they told him he was needed (in their opinion) somewhere else. He was going from the one location to the other when he got into the conflict.

Well, there we have it. He was "instructed" by militia members to take up positions in other locations. He is no longer responsible for his acts, because he was just following orders... of other people who were there to stir up trouble. Or are you honestly going to try and make the case that armed militia members are NOT there to create further havoc? In what recent event have militia members been on the right side of a disturbance?

Originally Posted by Mayer

Ya, I don't understand this idea that he was "wading through the crowd looking for trouble". It's simply not aligned with the facts, both from video and from multiple witness testimonies.

A 17 year old travels 40 miles across state lines to engage in something that does not impact his community. His excuses were he was there to protect property and give aid. He owned no property in the area, was not contracted to protect property, and had no reason to be there in any protective capacity. He also was not a medic in any shape or form and offered to give aid that evening to zero people. Smells like looking for trouble.

Let's be real here. Rittenhouse had a cop fetish and was trying to live out his fantasy of being a police officer. This is consistent with his history of being a cadet with the local law enforcement detail. Rittenhouse sought out this opportunity to engage. He purposefully travelled to the location and carried a weapon he knowingly knew he was not allowed to have. You don't go to those lengths unless you hope you are going to run into some trouble so you can live out your fantasy of being an authority figure. This is also consistent with those who have a history of being traumatically bullied, which Rittenhouse was as a kid. Rittenhouse made choices that led up to those events, and those should count towards judging him.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I didn’t watch the whole thing, but read that the lawyer was like that most of the time. Default position. Just looks hilarious in the clip that everyone has seen. Not exactly proof of anything.

Ya but in this case it happened as the cross examination caused the government star witness to agree he got shot only when he pointed his weapon at Kyle. The guy admitted to attempted murder on the stand

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Some people are claiming that being on the streets in Kenosha with a firearm that night was itself proof of malign intent. If that’s the case, a lot more people than Rittenhouse should be denounced.

"You're needed somewhere else", sounds like e euphemism for "you're not wanted here".

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

If Grosskreutz was carrying a weapon with an expired permit, that still makes it illegal. It's the exact same charge as if he'd never had the permit.

Nope. Only if he was carrying concealed. Wisconsin is an open carry state and he was carrying the weapon legally, a weapon he legally purchased, and legally owned. If he was carrying concealed with an expired permit, it is a class A misdemeanor. Grosskreutz was not charged with such because Wisconsin's open carry is messy. Just showing the butt of the gun is considered open carry for example.

I'm hoping that the prosecution finds some kind of lesser offence here that will keep Rittenhouse away from guns for the rest of his life.

That's my hope as well. I would actually like to see the prosecution go the route of mental fitness, because I don't think Rittenhouse is mentally stable enough to own or carry a weapon. This is a great example of mental health needs to be weighed before someone is allowed to have possession of a weapon. Carrying a gun comes with great responsibility and those who are not emotionally stable or mature should not be allowed near a weapon. Rittenhouse falls in this class because of how badly he was bullied (according to his mother). Prevent Rittenhouse from having access to guns in the future, and then allow this to play out in civil court.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Ya but in this case it happened as the cross examination caused the government star witness to agree he got shot only when he pointed his weapon at Kyle. The guy admitted to attempted murder on the stand

That's not fair. Grosskreutz said he pulled the weapon, but purposely did not shoot first. A bit irrelevant though, as the test is whether Rittenhouse thought his life was in danger, not whether Grosskreutz actually intended to do harm.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Nope. Only if he was carrying concealed. Wisconsin is an open carry state and he was carrying the weapon legally, a weapon he legally purchased, and legally owned. If he was carrying concealed with an expired permit, it is a class A misdemeanor. Grosskreutz was not charged with such because Wisconsin's open carry is messy. Just showing the butt of the gun is considered open carry for example.



That's my hope as well. I would actually like to see the prosecution go the route of mental fitness, because I don't think Rittenhouse is mentally stable enough to own or carry a weapon. This is a great example of mental health needs to be weighed before someone is allowed to have possession of a weapon. Carrying a gun comes with great responsibility and those who are not emotionally stable or mature should not be allowed near a weapon. Rittenhouse falls in this class because of how badly he was bullied (according to his mother). Prevent Rittenhouse from having access to guns in the future, and then allow this to play out in civil court.

I believe Grosskreutz did state he had the weapon concealed until he pulled it out.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Ya but in this case it happened as the cross examination caused the government star witness to agree he got shot only when he pointed his weapon at Kyle. The guy admitted to attempted murder on the stand

What? Grosskreutz admitted that the one frame of the video showen in the court room looked like he was pointing his weapon at Rittenhouse. It was a single word response (yes) to the frame of the defense attorney's question. He did not admit to pointing his weapon, and actually stated he was not intentionally pointing his weapon at Rittenhouse. He had his gun in his right hand and his cellphone in his left hand. Grosskreutz was a trained shooter and knew how to handle his weapon. If he had drawn down and meant business, he would have had both hands on the weapon and in a three point stance, just as he was trained. This is consistent with his claim that he had no intention of using his weapon and he only had it drawn for availability.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

I believe Grosskreutz did state he had the weapon concealed until he pulled it out.

In his testimony he says the gun falls from his waist. I don't think it is ever clear whether he had a holster, and if so what kind it was (inside or outside the waistband). The fact that he was not charged with anything kind of says he had an external carrier and was not carrying concealed. Again, in Wisconsin, so long a component of the weapon is visible, you are not carrying concealed. The whole weapon must be concealed.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

What? Grosskreutz admitted that the one frame of the video showen in the court room looked like he was pointing his weapon at Rittenhouse. It was a single word response (yes) to the frame of the defense attorney's question. He did not admit to pointing his weapon, and actually stated he was not intentionally pointing his weapon at Rittenhouse. He had his gun in his right hand and his cellphone in his left hand. Grosskreutz was a trained shooter and knew how to handle his weapon. If he had drawn down and meant business, he would have had both hands on the weapon and in a three point stance, just as he was trained. This is consistent with his claim that he had no intention of using his weapon and he only had it drawn for availability.

No offense but I don't think you're really watching the trial or reading the articles very carefully

"When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired," defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said during his cross-examination. "It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him that he fired, right?"

His reply

Correct

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

A 17 year old travels 40 miles across state lines to engage in something that does not impact his community. His excuses were he was there to protect property and give aid. He owned no property in the area, was not contracted to protect property, and had no reason to be there in any protective capacity. He also was not a medic in any shape or form and offered to give aid that evening to zero people. Smells like looking for trouble.

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.

[White Out 403]

Lanny where on earth are you getting your information from? I am genuinely curious.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Ya but in this case it happened as the cross examination caused the government star witness to agree he got shot only when he pointed his weapon at Kyle. The guy admitted to attempted murder on the stand

Just highlighting that the “facepalm” had nothing to do with a reaction to the statement outside of making it meme worthy.