Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-03-2021, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, but that should be done before charges are filed, not after. 
The did indeed, here's the quote from your article;
The prosecutor said that it is not known exactly what words were said, but it is clear that Rittenhouse started a confrontation that led Joseph Rosenbaum to begin chasing Rittenhouse across a parking lot.
Now, I'm reasonably certain that WI state law does not differ this radically from CA state law, but in CA words are not valid provocation to physically chase and then assault and attempt to rob someone.
 Open carrying in a state that allows open carry is not a "provocation", it's an exercise of your rights within that state.
Yes, Rosenburg chased Kyle down and then attempted to assault and rob him, by the prosecution's own admission.  Literally textbook self defense for Rittenhouse to respond as he did.
 Not sure how this is relevant at all.  It's rather understandable for him to be in a bit of a shaken state after such an event.
The underlined is the epitome of a bad faith statement.  A few things, because this statement is just mind boggling in it's absurdity.  One, his back was turned, so he's not going to be able to hear as well, because, you know, our ears point to the front.  Even if he could hear the shot perfectly there's literally zero chance he'd be able to judge that the shot came from 40 yards away, especially when he is concentrating on fleeing a mob intent on attacking him.  Lastly, and I'm guessing you're not aware of this, but firearms, even handguns, are still lethal at forty yards.  I can mag dump a man-sized target at 40 yards and get 15 out of 17 rounds within the 9-10 ring.
I take it back, this is the actual epitome of a bad faith statement.  You've seen the video, you've heard how quickly all four shots were fired.  Rosenbaum was struck in the back as he was falling because of the shots to his front.  This is not the same thing as Rosenbaum being shot in the back initially.  Seriously, your position in this thread is just horribly biased, and in a frightening and apparently intentional way.
By your and the prosecution's own admission Rittenhouse did not initiate a physical confrontation.  He also attempted to flee a physical confrontation and continued to do so.  Also, I'll reiterate, because you keep mentioning this like it's important, Rittenhouse being in possession of the gun illegally has zero, absolutely zero, bearing on the question of self defense.  No one there could possibly know that, and even if they did it would not justify their attacking him.
I won't go so far as to say you're being deliberately dishonest here, but the underlined is a blatantly false statement.  But no one needs to take more word for it, watch the video that proves this.
You got this part right, except no need for quotes around deadly weapon.  A skateboard is absolutely a deadly weapon under the law when it is used to strike someone.  
Absolutely, yes, as long as they didn't initiate the physical confrontation that lead to them being chased.
Absolutely, yes.  Also, by "generate mayhem" you mean run for his life as people attack him?  If not, kindly expand on what he was doing that was "generating mayhem".
He made one illegal decision, to carry a gun he was not old enough to possess on his own, a misdemeanor btw.  As for his "bad decisions", I would certainly not have gone to a predictable riot, regardless of which side I was on the issue.  But that's not illegal, nor is it grounds to attack him, nor is it legal proof of ill intent.  It's also a double edged sword for your position as the exact same thing could be said about all three people Rittenhouse shot in self defense.
I do appreciate this post, though.  It's a textbook example of how people can ignore facts and the law when it serves their ideological purpose.

This seems pretty helter skelter, ad hoc, and desperate, relying too much on adjectives and ad hominem--that's my "feel" statement for today. I'll try and fish out other points to respond to.

Sounds like you are saying that, because our ears point forward, we can't distinguish whether a shot fired 40 yards behind us was fired 40 yards away or right behind us. Even if you can put 17 rounds in the 9-10 ring, I don't agree.   

I agree that handguns are deadly beyond 40 yards. Perhaps you'll agree that people without handguns aren't aren't a handgun threat. 

Also, R was fleeing one man, not a "mob" when he turned and shot the unarmed Rosenbaum.


Read carefully. I did not say that R shot Rosenbaum in the back initially. I said the kill shot followed him falling forward because of shots to his "extremities," according to the prosecutor. Also, Rosenbaum looked to be facing Rittenhouse when initially shot. He can't get shot in the back without some change in the angle of the barrel. 

By "generate mayhem" I mean bring a gun to a riot intending to "run toward danger," argue with protestors, and shoot one when he tries to disarm. You keep referring to this then minor's "right" to open carry during a riot, even apparently during the curfew he was violating, when he did not even have a right to be on the street. 


Certainly the people R shot made "bad decisions," but theirs theirs did not lead to homicide charges.