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 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?
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.
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
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:
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.
Rittenhouse claimed in court yesterday he wasn't proficient at all, contradicting evidence given by his friend.
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.
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
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?
Isn't all acting fake op?
No it isn’t
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.
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.
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?
Do you always defend things based on the law of the land they occurred in rather than your own perception of what is right?
They also didn't mention that he admitted in court he didn't have sufficient training to do any of the things he claims he was trying to do
But we are not in an American court so we can refer to them as victims of a shooting. Right?
One correction to that - Grosskreutz turned around still holding the pistol (he wa likely unable to release it given the nature of his injuries), and ran back up the road cradling his injured, gun-holding arm and shouting "MEDIC! MEDIC!" as he went.
Rittenhouse got up and headed toward the police, where he approached with his hands up in order to—he says—turn himself in to them and explain that he had shot people, but the police turned him away.
This judge just keeps on giving
There is plenty of evidence out there regarding the treatment of different races in the media but I'm in no way surprised that you do not see it due to your own biases.
I similarly feel sorry for people who have their head in the sand like you do when it comes to the different treatment of people by their race - it just shows you don't care about others that aren't like you. Ignorance isn't impartiality.
Nor did they mention the guy initially lying about not having the handgun to police. Those details don't matter in the whole - if you want to find out what happened go watch the numerous videos from different angles and find the truth, it's there waiting for you. Good luck
You can refer to them as saints for all I care. I was specifically discussing the judge's refusal to allow that language in court with an ongoing interlocutor.
Fill your boots, chief.
They didn't know there was a crime scene. It wasn't in their line of sight. In the video there's all sort of noises of firecrackers perhaps even shots in the distance. There loads of people around with weapons. Loads of people shouting. There is literally 60 secs between both shootings.
You're crediting them with knowing things that we only know, and tbh that some people in this thread are still get the basic facts wrong even with a load of videos and maps and drone footage.
Your logic seems to be they saw (which they didn't) Rittenhouse shoot someone who approached (attack) him then decide to do exactly the same thing. Makes no sense.
In regards to the race obsessed, this has been doing the rounds on Twitter. It's actually annoying, because even if every person he shot/killed was black, it wouldn't change a thing. These people honestly think that if anything bad ever happens to a black person, that racism is always the reason. These racial laws they've created, never apply to Europeans though, which makes no sense at all.
He racked it again it's because he either had a miss fire or jam it's the only reason you would rack an AR15 type rifle ,
When discussing a court case, I'd hope so. Your own morality has nothing to do with the outcome, so it serves little purpose.
There is no racking of the weapon on the video evidence. At all.
What the f...
The state of this. Grandstanding during a murder trial and the second tweet implies that he knew the witness being called was a veteran.
There's good odds where ever you are in the States there's a veteran of something nearby.
But yet grosskreutz said he racked his rifle between shooting Huber and himself , which suggests he either had a miss fire or jam ,
All while under threat of death from a baying mob, you wouldn't be that calm and collected with no experience shooting the rifle bar once when his mate actually bought it
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/20f4606d019ca0b240328ff30d91e82b.svg)
