BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

i don't understand how after watching the evidence, the state can honestly take the position that Rittenhouse provoked the attack and gave up his right to self-defense. like at this point, holding that position feels remarkably un ethical, especially for a state prosecutor. I expect a defense attorney to ignore inconvenient facts because their only ethical obligation is to their client, but the prosecutor should have an ethical obligation to only prosecute truthfully.

---

AMEN. It's scary and disgusting.

if liberals are ever given unchecked power, look the F out. We are done.

aggiehawg said:

---

Provocation by Rittenhouse has been argued but what evidence was there to indicate that?

---

What does that matter anyway? How are any of Rosenbaum's actions consistent with self defense?

The prosecutors are trying to make new arguments here that were not previously made or present in the evidence.

The video still has Rittenhouse (?) Labeled

That's how clear this evidence is

Short break.

Philip J Fry said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Provocation by Rittenhouse has been argued but what evidence was there to indicate that?

---

What does that matter anyway? How are any of Rosenbaum's actions consistent with self defense?

---

My guess is you can't claim self defense if you provoke the hell out of a guy, he attacks then you retaliate claiming SD

They were just arguing about jury instructions correct?

They haven't filed to dismiss any charges yet have they?

GeorgiAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Provocation by Rittenhouse has been argued but what evidence was there to indicate that?

---

What does that matter anyway? How are any of Rosenbaum's actions consistent with self defense?

---

My guess is you can't claim self defense if you provoke the hell out of a guy, he attacks then you retaliate claiming SD

---

That seems to be correct.

Branca:

Quote:

---

Judge to state: Show me on the photo what you're talking about?

Kraus: Defense exhibit shows him pointing the weapon.

Richards: Still has Rosenbaum behind Rittenhouse.

---

shsuAg12 said:

---

They were just arguing about jury instructions correct?

They haven't filed to dismiss any charges yet have they?

---

They will do the motions after the instructions.

Seems like Kyle's lawyers sucked

powerbelly said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Provocation by Rittenhouse has been argued but what evidence was there to indicate that?

---

What does that matter anyway? How are any of Rosenbaum's actions consistent with self defense?

---

My guess is you can't claim self defense if you provoke the hell out of a guy, he attacks then you retaliate claiming SD

---

That seems to be correct.

---

yea, the WI self defense law has some parts that basically say if you provoke an attack, you have a set of obligations you now have to meet before you regain the right to use deadly force in self defense. so if they can show that KR provoked rosenbaum, kyle now has to have satisfied all of the new requirements for his shoot to be legal self defense

Many liberals think merely his presence there that night was provoking enough and he gives up that right.

Prosecution is going to argue that Rittenhouse first chased Rosenbaum, which there really isn't any evidence of. Then they are going to say that grainy zoomed in still from the evidence fairy drone footage shows him pointing a gun at someone, which provoked Rosenbaum. If the jury believes he provoked the other guy, he can still be found not guilty based on self-defense but he has to meet elements of retreat and notice of intent to retreat.

Prosecutor already admits that he meets one of the elements of retreat as he was, even as the prosecutor just said, running away from the guy. Prosecutor will argue that he didn't give adequate notice that he was retreating and also paused to turn around, which means self-defense would not apply because it doesn't meet the rule invoked once he provoked the fight.

So the case is going to really depend on if the jury believes Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum to come after him.

TheEyeGuy said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Thanks EyeGuy for ending that discussion

---

Might have had one or two of these discussions in my place of business.

Really want to get someone riled up, find an old Fudd and let me school him on 9mm vs 45acp.

---

EyeGuy, can you place an order for explode on contact hollow points? Not expand but explode. Thanks.

There is zero proof of the gun being risen. That is doubtful at best. It is certainly nowhere close to being beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence should have never been allowed

Branca:

Quote:

---

Kraus: We have evidence of provocation. If he raised gun it is clear provocation. Jury should hear instruction, then up to us to prove it.

Man, Kraus is doing the frantic pleading flop-sweat thing again. That fuzzy photo to support provocation is really all they have.

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Provocation by Rittenhouse has been argued but what evidence was there to indicate that?

---

What does that matter anyway? How are any of Rosenbaum's actions consistent with self defense?

---

My guess is you can't claim self defense if you provoke the hell out of a guy, he attacks then you retaliate claiming SD

---

That seems to be correct.

---

yea, the WI self defense law has some parts that basically say if you provoke an attack, you have a set of obligations you now have to meet before you regain the right to use deadly force in self defense. so if they can show that KR provoked rosenbaum, kyle now has to have satisfied all of the new requirements for his shoot to be legal self defense

---

Everything provokes violent deranged white libs just let out of the loony bin. Rosenbaum was literally provoked just by Rittenhouse and his friends being there. Because he is a white liberal psycho.

Sorry...was (hehe).

GeorgiAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Provocation by Rittenhouse has been argued but what evidence was there to indicate that?

---

What does that matter anyway? How are any of Rosenbaum's actions consistent with self defense?

---

My guess is you can't claim self defense if you provoke the hell out of a guy, he attacks then you retaliate claiming SD

---

Going to say that doesn't feel right. As the prosecution, wouldn't you have to prove what Rosenbaum was thinking/feeling at the time to justify his actions?

And why would I not have the right to protect myself against physical harm just because I may have inadvertently triggered someone else?

Rittenhouse retreated and was chased into a corner. Any argument that it was provoked should be thrown out as soon as the child molester chased him.

The drone video expanded was not admitted was it? It was only the photos

Where is the judge going with this/

This is the okay-iest boomer-iest sheit I've ever heard

powerbelly said:

---

Where is the judge going with this/

---

I think that he's about to shoot down the prosecution hard

Judge making a very bad comparison to a screenshot on a phone compared to a picture, saying when he screenshots text messages they get blurry and he's concerned the image is too blurry.

Philip J Fry said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Provocation by Rittenhouse has been argued but what evidence was there to indicate that?

---

What does that matter anyway? How are any of Rosenbaum's actions consistent with self defense?

---

My guess is you can't claim self defense if you provoke the hell out of a guy, he attacks then you retaliate claiming SD

---

Going to say that doesn't feel right. As the prosecution, wouldn't you have to prove what Rosenbaum was thinking/feeling at the time to justify his actions?

And why would I not have the right to protect myself against physical harm just because I may have inadvertently triggered someone else?

---

The jury can infer facts from circumstantial evidence.

Ex. Calm guy is accosted by a guy who berates him, his GF, his momma etc.. with incendiary words and accusations. Video shows guy visibly getting upset and agitated. Despite that, he continues with remarks. Guy attacks and is shot by the initial bully. Don't know what the shot guy was thinking, but a normal person would get angry and his body language on video showed it. Jury could infer he had been provoked to attack.

Edit: I think provocation is B.S.

Prosecution agrees that his picture evidence is very blurry but is saying that this is the evidence of raising the rifle

Captain Positivity said:

---

Prosecution is going to argue that Rittenhouse first chased Rosenbaum, which there really isn't any evidence of. Then they are going to say that grainy zoomed in still from the evidence fairy drone footage shows him pointing a gun at someone, which provoked Rosenbaum. If the jury believes he provoked the other guy, he can still be found not guilty based on self-defense but he has to meet elements of retreat and notice of intent to retreat.

Prosecutor already admits that he meets one of the elements of retreat as he was, even as the prosecutor just said, running away from the guy. Prosecutor will argue that he didn't give adequate notice that he was retreating and also paused to turn around, which means self-defense would not apply because it doesn't meet the rule invoked once he provoked the fight.

So the case is going to really depend on if the jury believes Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum to come after him.

---

But even if you stipulate that he provoked pedo, how does that impact his self defense from skateboard ****head and one armed ****head?

Judge reminding everyone he's Proud to be an American.

IF the photo is an after thought then why is he protesting so hard to get it admitted.

Can the State and the Defense come together to make a co-motion for the judge to put his GD cell phone on vibrate? IANAL, btw.

OldArmyBrent said:

---

Captain Positivity said:

---

Prosecution is going to argue that Rittenhouse first chased Rosenbaum, which there really isn't any evidence of. Then they are going to say that grainy zoomed in still from the evidence fairy drone footage shows him pointing a gun at someone, which provoked Rosenbaum. If the jury believes he provoked the other guy, he can still be found not guilty based on self-defense but he has to meet elements of retreat and notice of intent to retreat.

Prosecutor already admits that he meets one of the elements of retreat as he was, even as the prosecutor just said, running away from the guy. Prosecutor will argue that he didn't give adequate notice that he was retreating and also paused to turn around, which means self-defense would not apply because it doesn't meet the rule invoked once he provoked the fight.

So the case is going to really depend on if the jury believes Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum to come after him.

---

But even if you stipulate that he provoked pedo, how does that impact his self defense from skateboard ****head and one armed ****head?

---

Probably going to argue they were trying to prevent "further violent assault on others by Rittenhouse."

If you supposedly see the raising of the rifle in the video then why are stills which are expanded needed to prove it?

How much time passed between Rittenhouse "allegedly" pointing his weapon; and Rosenbaum attacking him?

Philip J Fry said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Provocation by Rittenhouse has been argued but what evidence was there to indicate that?

---

What does that matter anyway? How are any of Rosenbaum's actions consistent with self defense?

---

My guess is you can't claim self defense if you provoke the hell out of a guy, he attacks then you retaliate claiming SD

---

Going to say that doesn't feel right. As the prosecution, wouldn't you have to prove what Rosenbaum was thinking/feeling at the time to justify his actions?

And why would I not have the right to protect myself against physical harm just because I may have inadvertently triggered someone else?

---

at least by WI law, if you provoke someone to attack you, you do retain the right to use of force in self defense, what you lose is the right to use deadly force. to regain that right you now have to meet certain retreat standards to basically show you disengaged.

and its not inadvertant triggering. if you claim self defense, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt you failed to meet the legal requirements. thats the tact this ADA is taking:

• first show beyond reasonable doubt that KR's actions would have provoked a reasonable person to attack
• then prove beyond resonable doubt that KR didn't take the proper steps to disengage and regain his legal right to use deadly force in self defense

And then we come back to the fact that idiots who think they are being helpful by beating someone to death or shooting him don't get to avoid being shot in self defense. **** all those ****heads.