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.
Yes he was convicted when he was 19 and apparently had no other or previous sex offences ,he was also a victim of sex abuse as as a young child into his teens ,not uncommon though
The eternal question asked by so many radical Labour activists prior to the last election in England "Well why don't you f off and vote Tory then?"
The electorate have become a low brow inconvenience to the modern middle class left.
It's ended with a epic shambles Tory Govt being certain of re-election for 2 more terms despite being in power for years and it is die hard Labour voters that will put them back in, any turd being better than the awful people of Labour.
2022 will be rough, what about 2026.
The Democrats are going to have a cleansed party, correct speech and thought, impressing each other and with barely concealed hostility to the public.
When the guy is convicted of raping five kids, is it really much to say that he had no other sex offences?
He had a couple of open cases for domestic abuse and jumping bond when he met his eternal reward and had been released from a mental hospital the morning of his killing, so once he stopped raping kids he obviously became an outstanding and upright citizen
And yet he's the a victim and the victim .
Nobody said he was an upstanding citizen ,
Just like the second and third victim's serious criminal records from domestic violence to serial burglaries .
One got into a fight with his brother when he was 18 and acting erratically and choked his brother and threatened him, the brother wanted him to go to hospital due to his mental health ....
None of the 3 victims were burglars or convicted for burglaries .
Yet according to boardsies
I'm making excuses , pathetic
Seems like someones agenda is coming undone
Kinda funny that lil Kyle shot three criminals, what are the odds of that? (Could be quite high in a BLM crowd during a riot I suppose) it's almost like they were up to no good when they were perforated. 🤔
Depends on who wins in 2026 but GOP could be on 55 seats by 2026 and most of their seats up in that election are solid red states. Dems and Labour keep pushing the demographics is destiny line but GOP/Tories are slowly making inroads among non-white voters. Back to the days of Regan fusionism.
Just the known victims. Many others don't come forward.
He was seen hanging around with members of the the proud boys extremist group he has made statements that could be classed as right wing extremist content he is not an average young man who just made a mistake this is not just a a left wing Liberal conspiracy the court case is about was he just acting in self defence or should he be sent to prison for homicide
this case will be used as pr for right wing extremist groups no matter what the verdict is
But yet non of the 3 victims were involved in criminal activity on the night .
Simple case of blame the victims
Open to correction. Apparently Grosskreutz permit to carry a concealed weapon had expired and he did not have a valid one that night.
For a citizen with no prior record, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit anywhere within the state is a class A misdemeanor, putting you at risk of up to $10,000 in fines, 9 months of jail time, or as much of both as the judge decides.
He already admitted he wasn't shot until he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.
Quite true. None of which means that Rittenhouse was unlawfully carrying the rifle.
US law makes a very clear distinction between purchase and possession. The one need not preclude the other.
I'm just going by what the friend said ,I haven't really gone into the legal side of if he was carrying illegal or legally,
I thought it was odd that the rifle was kept in the friends step fathers gun safe in a home Rittenhouse didn't live in considering it was supposedly rittenhouses gun
Was it Claimed at some stage his mother bought the rifle for him ?
Actually what is your opinion on it the legality of gun being your probably the most qualified person in this thread to talk about it
@Flinty997 He already admitted he wasn't shot until he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse,
Rittenhouse who had just shot dead an unarmed man.
Now has he been charged with anything ?
His testimony on the stand was quite accurate. In order to possess the gun in Illinois where he lived, he would need a Firearms Owner ID card, it's an Illinois-specific hoop through which to jump. He did not have one when the rifle was purchased, he applied for one in May, and it had not been processed by the time of the Kenosha riot. Thus it would have been unlawful for him to possess the rifle in Illinois, it had to stay in Wisconsin.
Similarly he was quite correct that in Wisconsin, he would have been prohibited from carrying a pistol, either concealed or openly, because of the laws prohibiting under 18s from carrying one. The only firearm he was legally entitled to carry would be either a rifle or shotgun (and even then some of those were out, but those exceptions do not apply here).
Regardless of how the rifle was acquired, and another person has been charged with malfeasance for that, Rittenhouse's possession at the riot seems to not have been barred under any legislation.
No, and it is theorized than amnesty from the weapons charges was the price of testimony. There is no argument (even in his own testimony) that he was unlawfully armed. An Operating Whilst Intoxicated charge from an incident the previous November was also dropped at the prosecutors request in January, a couple weeks after Rittenhouse's plea appearance.
You don't seem know the order of events. He'd just shot someone hitting him with a skateboard. Is someone using a skateboard as a weapon unarmed?
Also make your mind up, Which is it? ...have any them been ever charged with anything... Or ever done anything illegal.... were any of them armed.
Next you'll say what happened before doesn't matter because Rittenhouse didn't know any of that. Well they didn't know what happened before either. We still don't know for sure and we've umpteen camera angles and videos and witness accounts. None of which they had. Even with all that evidence you can't even get the order of events right. They had no clue either.
From the first time Rittenhouse was chased to the moment that he put his hands up for surrender was less than 3 minutes. Everything that happened was in less than 3 minutes.
He was armed with a chain. Seen swinging it earlier and Rittenhouse testified he had seen the chain also. So 4ft and heavy metal chain. One could argue Rittenhouse was slow to fire. Also other witnesses have identified the "victims" being involved in criminal actions such as property destruction and criminal threats to others
The skateboard was also weighted, ie deliberately converted from a sporting good to a weapon, kinda like driving large nails through the end of a baseball bat
God bless him. I guess society let the poor man down.
Lol. Get a grip.
Seems like he was at the right protest (riot) though. This guy only raped 5 kids. He met thousands in his lifetime. You could say that in general, the majority of his interactions with kids were "mostly peaceful".
But was shot at around 4 foot from Rittenhouse
No. This is an incorrect statement. Rosenbaum was shot point blank as he was reaching for Rittenhouse's gun (video evidence, eye witness testimony and pathologist testimony).
It's Grosskreutz who was shot ~3 feet away from Rittenhouse (video evidence), after he aimed his pistol toward Rittenhouse's head (video evidence and Grosskreutz' own testimony).
You really ought to familiarise yourself with at least the more basic established facts in this case.
But there is legal ambiguity around whether he was allowed to be in possession of the firearm, which the judge intends to address in jury instruction.
The residue and soot pattern on Rosenbaum's hand was—as explained in great detail by the pathologist (who was called by the prosecution) as pictures of the injuries were shown—indicative of a point-blank hit to the hand from the barrel.
Since the prosecution's expert witness swore to that on the stand, and since you don't seem to have any clue what actually happened on that night beyond being very certain that Rittenhouse is guilty of everything he's charged with and probably a bit more, I think it's probably safe to go with the pathologist's assessment of Rosenbaum's wounds.
On the stand, Gaige Grosskreutz testified that he was carrying the handgun in his possession illegally.
The reason he was carrying it illegally was because, him having been arrested and charged with felony burglary (which he admitted to police after they proved that he had sold the items he stole), his gun license was automatically suspended.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you are being grossly misinformed by it.
Finding it hard to believe i just read that, incredible. Ted bundy was only convicted of 20 murders, not sure if he had any other previous offences. Unbelievable.
It's shocking alright, that sort of "but his our Peado" didn't work out well for the Catholic church or any other group who did it.
Imagine being so utterly obsessed with Kyle Rittenhouse being guilty that you attempt to downplay someone being convicted of raping multiple children.
Absolutely despicable.
But he didn't have the chain at the time of the shooting ,and the only evidence of threatening to kill rittenhouse came from rittenhouse no video or audio exists of the threats ,
This was brought up this morning /last night when they were discussing closing and jury instructions
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86b2bf519a78c14958c9040117dc4dc1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/efd3dd9d0bb9a4718dd25ad32419f424.svg)
