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.
No, I'm explaining why the judge disallowed "victim" in this case and what the rationale was. "Never allowed" is a very absolute statement that can almost certainly be disproven.
Rittenhouse's distress yesterday seemed like a genuine panic attack to me, but in any case you didn't answer my question: should the defense be able to put into evidence videos of Rittenhouse crying and being distressed about the case, if such videos exist?
You're taking it out of context. He falls on the ground, he get kicked in the head, he gets struck with skateboard, its on video all the goading going on by the crowd, this is all happening within seconds, he sees a guy approaching with a gun at point blank range, who then points the gun at him, Rittenhouse only shoots in response to the gun being aimed at him, and then only once. The guy with the pistol holds up his hand, and backs off, then so does Rittenhouse.
Active shooter. They hadn't seen anyone shooting, before they attacked him. Just doesn't hold water.
That's your biased interpretation.
They were stating known facts about the guy. You chose to see it as "building sympathy".
And there is no factual basis for your assertion that white shooters get an easy ride. Again, just showing your inability to be impartial and objective when looking at this case.
You certainly do seem obsessed with race. I feel sorry for people who cannot see past race / skin color.
No it isn’t
Isn't all acting fake op?
In what way are they building up sympathy? Just because you don't like the headline doesn't make it untrue or slanted in favour of Rittenhouse.
They didn't state in the headline he was attacked initially, did they?
So are you saying victim is never allowed in cases when there is potentially self defense?
I'd agree remorsefulness wasn't an issue until his antics yesterday. He opened the door to it by putting on the show for the jury, now the jury should be allowed into his other actions
Did any authorities ask civilians for help?
There are other organisations in America that can be brought out to assist the police, should they be needed.
Pretty sure asking 17 year old teenagers to arm themselves to protect businesses is never going to happen.
Rittenhouse claimed in court yesterday he wasn't proficient at all, contradicting evidence given by his friend.
Did he, or did he not admit in court that Rittenhouse only fired the shot after he walked up to Rittenhouse and pointed the gun directly at him?
I mean I doubt you believe it but you'd have to be one dumb individual to point a gun at someone in the middle of a riot where people have been shot and killed seconds earlier expecting a peaceful disarmament.
You are embarrassing yourself.
I am looking at it objectively - I have repeatedly stated he'll get off on this.
On the race thing, it is simply a fact. Time and time again young white shooters get an easy ride making people sympathise with them (though you wouldn't believe it from whining from the right). I'd have no problem with the narrative you stated above but here is the 'liberal' NYT post on the case trying to build up sympathy:
Grosskreutz at no point attempted to disarm Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz at no point touched or reached for Rittenhouse's gun.
Where the hell are you getting your info from? lol
Oh and here is the kicker, there's actually a trial going on that if your concerned about racist shootings is for them. Those three white lads in a pickup that gunned down an unarmed black lad after driving after him.
No, I'm saying that "victim" is not allowed when the point of the case is to establish whether or not the people in question were victims. And that it is allowed when there is a clear cut victim, regardless of the crime. A self defense trial is pretty unique in the sense that it establishes whether or not a crime occurred, and therefore whether or not any victims exist.
As for the t-shirt, his remorsefulness is not at issue, and would not be at issue or taken into account until such a time as it's established that a crime took place. There is no expectation that an innocent person should be remorseful. I can think of plenty of cases where I would not be remorseful about killing someone I believed to be in the process of attempting to murder myself or a family member, for example. Would you want the defense to be able to enter a bunch of videos of Kyle crying about the incident, if they exist?
Your argument on the handgun doesn't make any sense - it was dealt with in court yesterday. He could have easily shot Rittenhouse from the range he was at but tried to disarm him. It is ridiculous to claim, like Rittenhouse is, that rather than shooting him from the range he was at, he instead walked up and grabbed Rittenhouse's gun so he could shoot him up close.
It wouldn't fly to try to disarm a shooter - that is utter nonsense. Sure, they might be in trouble if they killed the shooter but there is no way taking steps to disarm an active shooter is a crime.
What? As far as I'm aware of he only shot once at the skinhead that struck him in the head whom provoked the situation grabbing his gun... the same person taunting and throwing heavy objects at him as well as a mob behind him threatening his life. All consecutive shots were single shots to each assailants.
Well thats what you're claiming.
And what was the unarmed man trying to do that led Rittenhouse to shoot him?
Lol checkmate
Yep it's mental , I know people talk about American right wingers being trapped in a media bubble and I am sure that's true, but at least in Ireland there isn't that equivalence it's the liberal left* that are in the bubble, and the front page of this thread is a perfect example normally sensible posters with a completely flawed reading of the situation. Like saying the Judge is biased etc with absolutely no evidence.
* Weirdly any hard left people I've met actually consume news from very diverse set of sources
For a child with a gun, he seemed to be far more proficient than his attackers.
He was well out numbered, and got out with barely a scratch on him.
The system is messed up for sure. But his attackers were monumentally dumb. I would defend him, only based on the facts of the case and the laws of the land in which it occurred.
People are trying to inject stuff into this case, that simply isn't relevant.
Rittenhouse had repeatedly shot an unarmed man before any of the situations you mentioned in your post.
He will walk on the murder charges because it is a two tier system. If he was black at a proud boy riot he wouldn't have gotten out of there alive, be it the rioters or police.
He didn't shoot anyone that wasn't attacking him. Unarmed people can kill you. An unarmed mob can kill you. Just because you don't have a weapon, doesn't mean you are not a threat. Technically he didn't shoot any other unarmed people one was hitting him a skateboard the other pointed a gun in his face. How did he know they hadn't killed anyone. For that matter you can be killed be someone who's never killed anyone before. What kinda logic is that.
Much simpler, don't attack people, then you are not likely to get shot by them.
You're obsessed by race. Try to look at things objectively - Kyle Rittenhouse went there likely anticipating trouble and possibly hoping for it, however the shootings he committed, according to the law(which will be found ultimately in the trial), were in self defence.
The end.
No .
As shown in the videos that have been shown in the trial, many of which have been available online since the incidents, and as confirmed by the prosecution's eye witnesses:
One reason "the guy with the handgun" (Grosskreutz) didn't shoot Rittenhouse could be because his bicep was shot before he could pull the trigger. His roommate (who is due to testify) posted on Facebook that night "“I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz. His only regret was not killing the kid [Rittenhouse] and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him.” He has since testified that that was a lie.
I don't know the law as it pertains to stopping an active shooter, but I imagine that if the shooter has shot one person and then stopped and is retreating with their weapon down, "I was trying to stop him shooting people" wouldn't fly. I'm not certain about that, though. I've only ever seen active shooter cases resolve that way when someone has stopped them clearly in commission of a crime.
And Rittenhouse is in court forcing out tears after spending time in prison. He'd be the one that would be dead if the guy with the hand gun took his shot rather than being non-lethal and trying to grab Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse is as much a case of Darwinism, he just got lucky that he isn't dead.
You still got a dead white woman, are you not happy?
The media who have done their usual job of being sympathetic to white criminals?
They don't allow it. He was only allowed to carry it for hunting. But thats not clearly defined. They should have a rule is they aren't allowed it until outside city limits and accompanied by a trained adult.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
