Court in recess for the day.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Stupid@17 said:

---

So, the "not enough for use of deadly force" seems like the hill the prosecution is trying to martyr Rittenhouse on. Hope people aren't stupid enough to believe it.

---

Try to grab a cop's gun, enough for deadly force.

Try to grab a civilian's gun, not enough for deadly force.

Are cops' guns really that much more lethal?

---

Defense has a self defense expert that will be allowed to testify. Same guy is use of force guy too.

He won't be as weird as the ones in the Chauvin trial, I hope. That was a cluster. Judge Cahill allowed them to opine when they were not offered nor qualified as "experts."

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

baron_von_awesome said:

---

Well I disagree, but I am familiar with history, including "minors" owning weapons and even leading troops or warships in battle (yes it happened).

If they are ready, they are ready, regardless of age. I trust my 15 and 17 year old completely in relation to firearms.

If more minors and adults with firearms would do what the police wouldn't do, then the riots would have ended a lot sooner.

---

My father-in-law left for WWII as a 17-year old. Some people actually care about things greater than themselves, regardless of age. Others vote democrat and wait for government checks.

---

There are stories of 16 year olds lying about their age to go fight the Japs and Nazis in WWII. I also heard some underage farmboys fought in the American Revolution. What a bunch of dumbass losers! Underage males should NEVER touch a gun! If they do, they are dumb!

/white liberal male feminists who naturally don't know sh** about guns

Almost certainly what this guy believes:

BREAKING: Human Events Daily has obtained never-before-seen FBI footage of the Kyle Rittenhouse Shootinghttps://t.co/QFAfI7mmJp pic.twitter.com/J8vOOoD3rg

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 2, 2021

Quote:

---

There are stories of 16 year olds lying about their age to go fight the Japs and Nazis in WWII. I also heard some underage farmboys fought in the American Revolution. What a bunch of dumbass losers! Underage males should NEVER touch a gun! If they do, they are dumb!

---

The Hubs had a very close friend of his who was underage and even underweight when he went to the recruiting center. Drank lots of milk and ate bananas to get his weight up right before.

17 when he enlisted. Purple Heart winner at Iwo Jima later, among other medals he earned, "not awarded" to him,

He passed several years back. Was one helluva guy. When his oldest son got into trouble with the law at 18, he worked a deal with the judge to give his son the choice of jail or the Marines. His son chose the Marines and became a law enforcement officer when he returned from 'Nam.

I don't think that's a dude. I think she's from Arkansaa.

aggiepanic95 said:

---

$2.09/gallon...the good old days

---

I never could've imagined I'd consider 2020 the good old days, but then came 2021.

mkorzo said:

---

This is the screen cap of the "warning shot" I've seen. He does appear to be shooting skyward-ish.



But "warning shot" is a much more charitable term than "reckless discharge of a firearm" I suppose.

---

Two comments:

A)

Quote:

---

A reckless discharge of a gun
That's what the officers are claimin'
Bubba hollered out reckless hell
I hit just where I was aimin'

---

2) Why is Kaepernick there?

mkorzo said:

---

Quote:

---

Under duress how is one to assume that individual was not an imminent threat to themselves?

---

I mean, yeah, absolutely. Rosenbaum was clearly aggressive--and from the looks of the videos of him earlier that night, unhinged and looking for a fight--and trailing and in pursuit of Rittenhouse when Ziminski fired his weapon skyward while also trailing behind Rittenhouse. If I were Rittenhouse in that situation, yep, I'm believing that I'm now in an active gunfight and am looking to neutralize deadly threats. And that's even before Rosenbaum tries to snatch the rifle away. So I get it. That part seems reasonable.

What doesn't seem reasonable to me is being a minor in possession of a firearm, and going into an active riot zone in defense of some dude's used car lot. Eff all that noise. Why would you ever insert yourself in that mess? But regardless, being a dumbass and going into a riot doesn't mean you forfeit your right to defend yourself.

---

You have to put yourself in the kid's shoes to understand it. This kid was a big fan and admirer of the police and may have even been in some kind of junior future police group judging by pics/articles that came out around the time of this incident... I think a big part of the Kenosha cops knew him before these shootings and the riots. Honestly, with destruction and rioting going on all over the country after George Floyd that he saw and this being 15 miles away from his home, and him likely having older friends there who were going to do the citizen protection thing and help the local cops who were under fire for the Jacob Blake deal, I can see how he'd get swept up in that and want to do his part. He felt like he was doing the right thing.

May not be the choice he'd make today or that you would make but he went there clearly to help what he thought was an out of control situation.

He landed himself in a real jackpot to be sure but as you note, he's got a right to defend himself.

Quote:

---

What doesn't seem reasonable to me is being a minor in possession of a firearm, and going into an active riot zone in defense of some dude's used car lot. Eff all that noise. Why would you ever insert yourself in that mess?

---

If we go with your premise being reasonable, does it negate Rittenhouse's ability to defend himself?

Bro, are you joking me?

You quote me, but leave off the last sentence of my post that literally answers your question:

mkorzo said:

---

Bro, are you joking me?

You quote me, but leave off the last sentence of my post that literally answers your question:

---

I was moreso pointing to another poster and their continuing argument that Kyle is guilty as a murderer, when this is pretty clear self defense.

Apologies for any confusion caused.

mkorzo said:

---

Bro, are you joking me?

You quote me, but leave off the last sentence of my post that literally answers your question:

---

Oops. Sorry. I did leave that off. I apologize


We agree then. Rittenhouse acted stupidly to put himself in a real ****ty situation but still has the right to defend himself. Not too dissimilar from the white Hispanic

Interesting that the FBI had overhead coverage and it comes out on day two of the trail?

SEATAC Aggie said:

---

---

Yeah, that video should set him free.

My great uncle was one of those underage enlistments. His 3 older brothers (including my grandfather) were enlisted, and he wasn't gonna stay here for anything. Mean, tough SOB too. My grandfather always said that we didn't need to drop the bomb, we just needed to drop Uncle Russ into Tokyo with a bottle of whiskey and a pair of brass knuckles.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

My great uncle was one of those underage enlistments. His 3 older brothers (including my grandfather) were enlisted, and he wasn't gonna stay here for anything. Mean, tough SOB too. My grandfather always said that we didn't need to drop the bomb, we just needed to drop Uncle Russ into Tokyo with a bottle of whiskey and a pair of brass knuckles.

---

My Dad was "Sullivaned" in June 1944. His oldest brother was on Eisenhower's staff and was with him, as a driver and translator.

His second brother was being shipped out from NJ.

Dad was eligible in for draft, when he was 18 on May 6th 1944. When he tried to enlist, he was turned down. Flat feet. high blood pressure was the medical reason.

I never got my uncle to admit it but I always thought he used his connection with Eisenhower to make that happen.

My grandfather had lost both parents by age 13. Second of 5 kids. Oldest sister (15 at age or orphanage) raised the rest of the kids. Italian immigrants and poor western PA coal miners. The second my grandfather turned 16, he enlisted in the navy. Warm bed and three meals for him; fat paycheck to send home to sister and siblings on top. Win win. Did some tours in the South Pacific in battles and riding out storms that would leave just about anyone puckered. Made a nice living after the war and just sort of hid the fact that he never went to high school.

ETA: he lied out of his ass to get the recruiter to believe he was 18. Working on getting forgeries to this day.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

baron_von_awesome said:

---

Well I disagree, but I am familiar with history, including "minors" owning weapons and even leading troops or warships in battle (yes it happened).

If they are ready, they are ready, regardless of age. I trust my 15 and 17 year old completely in relation to firearms.

If more minors and adults with firearms would do what the police wouldn't do, then the riots would have ended a lot sooner.

---

My father-in-law left for WWII as a 17-year old. Some people actually care about things greater than themselves, regardless of age. Others vote democrat and wait for government checks.

---

I would deem Kyle as more than 'ready', but seems like everyone is forgetting the 2nd Amendment right is silent about age. Kyle is not guilty of anything, especially that misdemeanor.

Grandfather was trench fighting at 16yo in WW I. Never heard that he had to misrepresent his age, so if he didn't 'have to' - that would be another marker for the level of demise of our 2nd Amendment RIGHT today.

Quote:

---

Assistant District Attorney Binger, the lead prosecutor on this case, presented the state's opening argument.

As I'd rather expected, and is typical in politically motivated prosecutions of this type, Binger's opening statement was heavy on innuendo, emotive phrases intended to stir fear and emotion in the jurors, and suggestions of poor judgement on the part of Kyle Rittenhouse, but very light on any evidence that was actually inconsistent with Kyle's legal defense of self-defense.

Binger made repeated references to Kyle as having shot "unarmed" victims, using an "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle with 30 rounds in the magazine," after which Kyle didn't stay to care for those he'd shot but simply walked away.

Property is not worth more than life, Binger reminded the jurors, as if Kyle had shot anybody over a mere property offense.

Of particular importance to Binger was an oft-repeated theme that despite there being hundreds of people present that night in Kenosha, the only person who shot anybody was this defendantKyle Rittenhouse.

As if what other people were experiencing or doing has anything whatever to do with whether Kyle himself was facing an unlawful imminent deadly force threat when he fired his rifle. One might as well note that Binger himself, and defense counsel Richards, and Judge Schroeder, also didn't shoot anybody in Kenosha that night. So what?

There was a lot of innuendo suggesting that Kyle was placing himself in dangerous circumstances unnecessarilyhe could have just been home that night. Of course, the same could be said of, for example, Rosenbaum, and Binger tried to head off that avenue of argument by noting that Rosenbaum had been at his girlfriend's house in Kenosha and ended up downtown because he wasn't able to stay at her house. This would almost come back to bite Binger badly later.

Binger also made an effort to minimize the possible threat that Rosenbaum could have presented. He was only 5' 3" and 150 pounds, for example, although if his mission was to seize Kyle's rifle and use it to kill himas he'd threatened to do only minutes earlierhis size wouldn't seem to matter all that much.

Binger also noted that Rosenbaum had only just been released from a "hospital" earlier that day, and indeed the plastic bag he was carrying was of the type provided by hospitals for keeping one's personal effects. This line would also almost come back to bite Binger badly later.

---

Read the rest

Tomorrow, will be a new thread, as requested.

Good analysis of the opening statements, and it shows a lot of video from the shootings.

Here is what it boils down to:

Under Wisconsin statute, an "original aggressor" may not shelter under self defense, even if later attacked.

So, the question is: Was Kyle the original aggressor by voluntarily inserting himself, armed, into a dangerous situation just by being present?

Yankee_Bass said:

---

Here is what it boils down to:

Under Wisconsin statute, an "original aggressor" may not shelter under self defense, even if later attacked.

So, the question is: Was Kyle the original aggressor by voluntarily inserting himself, armed, into a dangerous situation just by being present?

---

LOL

Would apply to cops in an awful lot of situations too if you are just arguing mere presence while armed is "being an aggressor".

Police are exempted when acting under official duties. It wasn't that he was simply armed. It was that he inserted himself into a dangerous situation voluntarily, armed. He (or any "defenders") simply were not authorized to "protect" property that wasn't theirs.

That's an absurd question.

No is quite clearly the answer

Then define "aggressor" in the context of Wisconsin statute. You can't. It's ambiguous, which is why we have lawyers arguing over it. Make no mistake though, that *is* the question.

No, he was not the aggressor. Stapping a long rifle to your chest does not make one an agressor.

The answer is no.

You missed the point. Again. It wasn't that he was armed. It was that he voluntarily and purposely put himself into conflict. The legal doctrine differs from what you "think" things ought to be.

I missed nothing. I understand what the state is trying to prove.

I am answering your question. Showing up to a protest with a long gun doesn't make you an aggressor.

Is your contention he was guilty the moment he left his house? If that's true, does he forfeit any right to defend himself from harm? In this case, I find it to be a silly argument to say he forfeited his right to self defense for simply showing up to a protest with a gu.

Yankee_Bass said:

---

You missed the point. Again. It wasn't that he was armed. It was that he voluntarily and purposely put himself into conflict. The legal doctrine differs from what you "think" things ought to be.

---

No one is missing anything except you. this theory is complete horse*****