I for one do not believe he shot them people out of self defence and never meant to kill them. I think he intended to kill them and thought he would get away with it. The Judge as well is a joke. What a very strange trial. Only in America.
First time i seen it and of course it has no bearing on the case since its entirely speculative. If you see Rittenhouse in that video its because you want to see him. You are perfectly happy to indulge on your own delusions.
That's not what happened here though.
If you tried to defend your neighbor's business from a gang of thugs, who were destroying it. And then the gang turned on you, and chased with the intent to harm you. If you fought back, in those circumstances, it could be deemed self defense.
According to the evidence so far:
Doesn't really line up with your hypothetical scenario.
Probably shouldn't of been down there in the first place, but was ultimately self-defense. He was attacked first whilst trying to run away. One attacker had a gun. One was a paedo. Not sure what people are so outraged about.
He'll walk anyway.
Can you link the video ? I genuinely would want to see that.
Was is it with some people and sexual fantasies about teenage boys? It's very odd.
Thats hilarious coming from the guy who posted this verbatim
"He said he wanted to shoot shoplifters in a video that the judge won't allowed to be played"
The video is a voice of somebody saying they would like to shoot a burglar. There's no faces and its only a few seconds long. It could be anybody in any part of the country. Its pure desperation to attempt to link the video to Rittenhouse. . Thats why he won't show it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se9ByJMPjcc&ab_channel=TMJ4News
"Probably". I would say, "Definitely". Rittenhouse was part of a group of wannabe militiamen who came down there looking for some action, motivated not so much out of a desire to protect property as out of a burning hatred for people they felt were politically-opposed to them. The police even refused to deputise Rittenhouse and his buddies because either the professionality of the police or the situation made it unnecessary.
Under US law, depending on the state, that might be self-defense, yes. Being called mean names is not a reasonable excuse for physically attacking someone, and in any case you would have a right to defend yourself if you were assaulted and believed your life to be in imminent danger. But it also bears no resemblance to what happened in this case.
On the back of community-destroying riots, several people decided to stand armed in front of businesses to act as deterrent to those business incurring more damage. Rittenhouse is on camera during the evening rendering first aid with the medical kit he was carrying, calling out to ask people if anyone needed a medic, and running with a fire extinguisher to put out a fire in a burning dumpster that rioters were attempting to push into a petrol station. He's also recorded earlier that day, cleaning graffiti off of walls in the area.
The first person shot and killed, Rosenbaum, told Rittenhouse earlier in the evening (as confirmed by a witness), "If I catch you alone I will **** kill you". At the time that he was shot he had chased Rittenhouse across a car park and thrown a bag at him, and was (according to video evidence, eye witness testimony, and the coroner's confirmation that his hand had a bullet injury and gunpowder/soot in it consistent with being very close to the end of the gun) lunging for Rittenhouse's weapon. Immediately before Rittenhouse shot, a third party (named Ziminski) shot a pistol into the air, which may or may not have lead Rittenhouse to believe that he was being fired upon. Ziminski has been charged for this "warning shot" (as he called it). I believe his disorderly conduct case is pending.
The second person shot and killed, Huber, is on video attacking Rittenhouse's head with a skateboard immediately before he's shot. Rittenhouse is on the floor and has already been fly-kicked in the head by another person (who he did not shoot).
The third person shot and injured, Grosskreutz, pulled a pistol as he joined the mob that was chasing Rittenhouse down the street. He initially stood back with his hands up, the pistol in one of them. He then moved forward and brought the gun around, aiming it at Rittenhouse's head. This is when he was shot and injured. He lied repeatedly on the stand, even when presented with video evidence, but ultimately admitted that he was only shot after he aimed his gun at Rittenhouse.
Whatever you think about Rittenhouse (and the group he was with) taking it upon themselves to go and try to deter rioters from destroying the business premises (and I think most people would agree that was extreme stupidity and exceedingly bad judgment), there is no evidence that those people were being antagonistic in any way other than by their very presence.
Well then he should be trialed for the misdemeanor and for breaking the curfew.
What is it with weird Irish right wing basement dwellers defending this weirdo?
True a story can be spun many ways. Hero, villian, innocent or guilty. Depends on who is telling it.
I'm not the delusional fanatic you're looking for.
I agree with the judge that it's not relevant to this case. It's the other guy who thinks it has relevance.
I'm not the one thinking about a teenage boy getting raped in prison, but I'm sure you've a different definition of weird than I have.
Apologies , I thought you said you agreed with Gatling
Did defense claim it wasn't Rittenhouse?
All I saw is that they said it wasn't relevant to the case and the clearly very questionable judge went along with it.
If Rittenhouse's own defense didn't make the case you are then it clearly was him in the recording.
Kinda hard to spin the video and physical evidence.
https://youtu.be/mBvi0LX5USA
It was clearly him? Prove it
He was reciting a script. His crying may have been legit but exaggerated for affect. Also I think he's more bewildered as to why he's even been tried.
His social media presense since the killings don't paint him as remorseful.
I believe he was underage for the rifle he was carrying.
Also one killing, maybe. But two?
Doesn't matter. There are those in this world who will still think what they want to think.
The world is mad.
Without his machine gun........he'd be dead
The judge isn't questionable; he's following the law and controlling his courtroom, as is his job.
People don't generally like it when someone they dislike is given equal representation under law, but get it they must or the law is corrupt and pointless.
The prosecution's comment on Rittenhouse's 5th amendment silence yesterday—twice—could have been enough for a mistrial and for Binger to be disbarred. It was prosecutorial misconduct and a very, very serious legal error, as was the later situation where he ignored prior court rulings. There are many, many other judges who would have sanctioned Binger and informed the jury that what occurred was an abuse of Rittenhouse's constitutional rights. This one just got a bit cross and told him to quit it.
He didn't have a machine gun.
I was quoting someone who said he had a machine gun. His gun, whatever it is.......
Without his semi automatic weapon he wouldn't have been there. He would like any same person left the policing to police. But Mercia woo haaa wooo haaa.
Very few houses in Ireland have basements buddy. Whats weird about him? Why you fantasizing about an 18yo being sexually assaulted?
The guys on the docks have killed two deliveroo drivers before I even think about getting to the drug related violence
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/43a1237286662dfb23d066ddf67c3b5f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c9236bc67b608c3603b1ed089c896282.svg)
