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.
The whole purpose of this trial is to determine if the people shot and killed were victims. If they were, then Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty. If they were not, Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty.
It would be absolutely ludicrous to allow the term victim to be used before a verdict has been reached as it would show a level of prejudice that Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty before any evidence was presented.
So this is an interesting page by a lawyer who specializes in self defense
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-9-prosecutions-big-win-on-provocation-saves-a-chance-at-conviction/
Firstly, this supposedly biased judge gave the prosecution a win in allowing a provocation instruction even though he himself was not convinced the evidence to be used justified it. Let the jury decide, which is a fairly common attitude for him..
Second, the same lawyer gives a good reason as to why the prosecution thought they could get away with the possession charge: The standard jury instructions make no reference to the exceptions. The notes to the instructions says that the burden is on the defense to bring up those exceptions. So, if the defense slips and forgets to bring it up (much like the prosecution apparently failed to enter any evidence for the curfew charge), it would be a win for the prosecution. In this case, the defense did not slip up. The judge would have been justified in dismissing the charge entirely, but chose to put it to the jury with modified instructions.
It gets a passing mention but anytime a black man gets shot it is 24/7 coverage even when the shooting was justified.
The judge was consistent. The men killed were rioting. No one can dispute that.
From the court trial.
The consensus from the wannabe navy seals was that he was didn't have much going on upstairs.
He ended up with less upstairs a few hours later.
Given how armed and volatile America is, it's really amazing so few innocent people are shot.
There will probably be more innocent African Americans shot dead this weekend alone in Chicago than by the police in a year in America.
Policing in African American communities has become such a potentially toxic issue, added in with Defund the Police that policing in them has suffered deeply.
That's great, defund the police, ACAB, etc if you are BLM or an activist, you go back to your suburban picket fence White neighbourhood.
Not so great if you are African American in those communities.
80% of African Americans want Police funding maintained or increased. The only demographic where there is a bump in support of defund the police is college educated 18 to 30 whites. Rich white middle class kids.
For obvious reasons
No Judge could allow the 3 shot men to be described as victims. That has nothing to do with them.
Did he racially attack a black person ??
Again Rittenhouse had he threatened to kill him but there was no evidence video or otherwise to show he did threatened to kill rittenhouse
Screaming "ni6636" at a black person wouldn't exactly be friendly. I would class it as a verbal attack. We will agree to disagree on that.
No evidence to prove he did threaten to kill Rittenhouse, specifically.
That would be icing on the Cake for the defence. Doesn't change much.
They are the victims of Kyle Rittenhouse. He killed them. Their personalities or intent doesn't change that.
They were pushing that over in the UK as well but even Labour agrees that the police in London need more funding and officers.
Victim implies that they were innocent or a wrong was done to them.
There is a court case ongoing to determine that.
isnt that the basis of the self defense claim ? they were about and attempting kill him , one of them pulled a gun and pointed it at him the others were chasing him into a car park ? so yes their intent matters as well as any previous violent crimes , indicating that they would actually killed him.
just coz you dont like some one doesn't change the law brucie
They are victims of a killing. The killings are the event they are victims of. The victims aren't on trial.
victim
[ˈviktəm]
NOUN
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
I'm familiar with the dictionary definition.
In a court of law it would be prejudicial. We know that they were involved in rioting etc, that's why that term is admissible.
The definition above, describing a victim as killed by an action done to them. It tends to focus on the "done to them", it was an action they set in motion. There is also negative connotations to the word, as if what happened to them wasn't the best outcome that night.
There is too much framing in that word in the minds of the public.
So what rioting did any of the Victims do ,
Burn down buildings ,smash businesss , random looting ??
All of it. And they weren't victims. But only someone like you would defend a pedophile attacking a young man.
All of it ,
And You can prove that ,
No ?
Of course they can dispute that. You start by defining the term "rioting" and then apply it to each of the people based on provable evidence. The same level of rigour that you use to decide if you can use the term "victim". If you're not going to do that then you can slander them with any pejorative.
Video footage is clear. And Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile. Did you send material or something because you are going to great lengths to defend him?
No proof of any of the 3 victims committing crimes during any of the riots .
Plenty of proof of crimes being committed. One is threatening people. Second is arson. The third is when they attacked Rittenhouse. Again, why are you defending a pedophile? Do you have the same predilection as him?
So again ,
You said "they" (3 victims) burned businessess , looted , smashed business ,
Remember you they did all of that .
But they didn't ,
So...
I see you're avoiding the question. Interesting.
If you ask the Very most of people "Person A was shot dead, did the victim deserve it" most will instinctively lean towards no.
There is a reasonable argument that the 2 got exactly what they wanted and the 3rd should have as well.
That's what the court will do and the legal system will not be altered because a 17 year old stopped some victims that night. Whether either of us approve,nor will the Judge change his long standing approach because the ivy League kids are screaming in anger.
😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
So you have zero evidence that the 3 victims of rittenhouses shooting commited any crimes in kenosha during the riots .
Yes ?
No?
Joint venture, they were in places where rioting and attacks were ongoing, witnesses said they were, whatever that testimony is worth.
Does it really matter if they were or not, say, hypothetically speaking, that they were good people whose lives had worth and even did small good deeds occasionally. A stretch but bare with me.
Those few minutes before they were on the receiving end of an action that killed them, in non court parlance made victims, are all that counts in the trial.
@Danzy There is a reasonable argument that the 2 got exactly what they wanted and the 3rd should have as well.
Why should the 3rd victim got it as well ???
One person shot multiple people that night only one person shot anyone that night ,
But they deserved to be shot because they had a record ,
So for instance you get done for a minor offense or a family member and sometime in the future someone shoots you or a family member you then cant cry I'm or my family member is a victim because you have a criminal record .
So vigilantes should have the ability to shoot and kill because they have a criminal record
It's also worth noting that Rosenbaum had tried to commit suicide earlier, either that day or Just before.Forget the exact.
Was his hyper aggression and violence the actions of a man who wanted to be shot?
Multiple child rape is not a minor offence, I appreciate that you phrased it wrong.
If someone tries their hardest to attack someone, you can't be surprised when it ends with a corpse.
If they were good people I'd have a different take on it, regret it ended how it did, pity they forced it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
