Social Kyle Rittenhouse updates

[Bob Gray]

Rosenbaum was deranged. The others were responding to an active shooter. Is there any evidence of the others committing any crimes during the protest?

I'd say being there as part of the group that was rioting and looting is a pretty good indication of criminal activity. Lets be real here. This wasnt a protest.

With that said, IMO you could easily make the argument that the latter two attackers thought they were responding to an active shooter. Im skeptical of how that applies to bicep guy considering hes literally on camera asking Kyle what hes doing and Kyles response is "Im going to the police". What I mean is, from a legal standpoint, both of the latter two guys have enough of a story to avoid any conviction from attacking Kyle if I had to guess. As far as I know the third guy was never even charged.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I think it's pretty well established that he got separated from his group because he went off to put out a fire and when he returned police had created a barrier and were blocking the way between he and his group.

Given his situation (one that he was in, admittedly, due to his own actions) I'm still confused on the question I asked earlier:

"What exactly are you guys wishing had happened to Rittenhouse at the hands of Rosenbaum and others who were attempting to assault him that night?"

I wish they had just hugged it out and shot the shit over a few beers.

 

[Bob Gray]

It's a very good hill to die on though because it has vast implications about how things will be perceived in the future. The situation is plain as day-- he was defending himself. He got attacked, there is no reason to believe that, seeing someone was willing to brain him with a skateboard, or point a gun at him, that they wouldn't have maimed or killed him. If he's convicted, it will demonstrate that you're not allowed to defend yourself if a prosecutor can look back long enough to determine "well you shouldn't have done X, or you shouldn't have been X."

None of the facts matter though. Truly, they don't. If most of the jury is right wing, he'll walk. If not, he'll be convicted. That's exactly what will happen. Evidence won't matter. Nobody's mind will be changed.

Would yours?

I think it's pretty obvious this trial could go either way. He could easily get decades of prison.

If hes found guilty its going to set a pretty horrible precedent. This is just my feeling and its not something I can prove, but if this were a black 17 year old that got chased down by a mob of white people, shooting 3 of them and killing a psychotic child molester and a guy convicted of domestic assault multiple times, there wouldnt even be a trial. The media would hail him as a hero rather than cast doubt on him.

If this falls down to a conviction based on some sort of political angle, thats legitimately terrifying. I keep thinking how what would be different if there wasnt any video footage? Just how badly would Kyle be fucked if the entire incident wasnt on video, and he was just the pro-police, MAGA kid that shot 3 BLM protesters? I cant even imagine how the media would run with that.


If we're at a point where someone can have literally hours of video footage from multiple sources explicitly showing his actions were self defense, and yet still a large enough group of people are OK with a murder conviction largely due to political reasons, I cant even wrap my head around the implications.

 

[nhbbear]

Is the curfew for covid lockdown or age based? If lockdown, I assume the rioters are being charged, right?

It didn’t say whether it was age based or because of the riots. There was a curfew in place due to the riots and there would be a curfew for him being 17. But they did not charge anyone else with curfew for the riot

 

[nhbbear]

I think it's pretty obvious this trial could go either way. He could easily get decades of prison.

I absolutely can not imagine any possible way that they find twelve people that will convict him on the murder charges

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I'd say being there as part of the group that was rioting and looting is a pretty good indication of criminal activity. Lets be real here. This wasnt a protest.

With that said, IMO you could easily make the argument that the latter two attackers thought they were responding to an active shooter. Im skeptical of how that applies to bicep guy considering hes literally on camera asking Kyle what hes doing and Kyles response is "Im going to the police". What I mean is, from a legal standpoint, both of the latter two guys have enough of a story to avoid any conviction from attacking Kyle if I had to guess. As far as I know the third guy was never even charged.

I think this shows some bias on your part. I think it's pretty obvious that not everyone there was rioting and looting. By your logic then you also accuse everyone that showed up to the Capitol building of being insurrectionists even if they didn't all try to break their way onto the floor.

 

[nhbbear]

trial live stream

the fucking judge is asking jeopardy questions. He is hamming this up for publicity

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If hes found guilty its going to set a pretty horrible precedent. This is just my feeling and its not something I can prove, but if this were a black 17 year old that got chased down by a mob of white people, shooting 3 of them and killing a psychotic child molester and a guy convicted of domestic assault multiple times, there wouldnt even be a trial. The media would hail him as a hero rather than cast doubt on him.

If this falls down to a conviction based on some sort of political angle, thats legitimately terrifying. I keep thinking how what would be different if there wasnt any video footage? Just how badly would Kyle be fucked if the entire incident wasnt on video, and he was just the pro-police, MAGA kid that shot 3 BLM protesters? I cant even imagine how the media would run with that.


If we're at a point where someone can have literally hours of video footage from multiple sources explicitly showing his actions were self defense, and yet still a large enough group of people are OK with a murder conviction largely due to political reasons, I cant even wrap my head around the implications.

Again I think this shows your bias.

If this was some minority inner city kid illegally carrying a gun, that shot a black guy trying to mug him, and then shot two other black guys that tried to keep him from running away would be a better analogy. I think he would also be charged by police.

 

[Bob Gray]

I think this shows some bias on your part. I think it's pretty obvious that not everyone there was rioting and looting. By your logic then you also accuse everyone that showed up to the Capitol building of being insurrectionists even if they didn't all try to break their way onto the floor.

Obvious how?

Like, if you go to a peaceful protest, and theres a bunch of people screaming, lighting fires, and looting/burning buildings, why exactly are you sticking around?

Does this seem peaceful to you? Do you think maybe the peaceful protest is like a couple blocks away?

 

[Bob Gray]

Again I think this shows your bias.

If this was some minority inner city kid illegally carrying a gun, that shot a black guy trying to mug him, and then shot two other black guys that tried to keep him from running away would be a better analogy. I think he would also be charged by police.

But thats not the comparison Im making. I think changing the parameters of the hypothetical like youve done is showing your own bias.

 

[nhbbear]

I think this shows some bias on your part. I think it's pretty obvious that not everyone there was rioting and looting. By your logic then you also accuse everyone that showed up to the Capitol building of being insurrectionists even if they didn't all try to break their way onto the floor.

I would agree. Even though this was a riot, that would make everyone present to be involved in the riot, including the militia. Unless there is video of the other two involved in riotous activity, they were protesters. The first guy was clearly rioting

 

[nhbbear]

Obvious how?

Like, if you go to a peaceful protest, and theres a bunch of people screaming, lighting fires, and looting/burning buildings, why exactly are you sticking around?

entertainment and stupidity

 

[Bob Gray]

entertainment and stupidity

 

[HockeyBjj]

How long from this start of jury selection until the actual trial begins?

 

[jeremyemilio]

I wish they had just hugged it out and shot the shit over a few beers.

Well, yes. Me too. But they weren't chasing him to hug it out. That's not what Rosenbaum's intentions were, and that wasn't the intention of the others, either.

This is where I don't understand the people who don't believe he acted in self defense. I agree with the sentiment that he should not have gone there. But he did. I don't think he deserved to be badly beaten, injured, and possibly killed for that. From your response above, I'm assuming you don't either.

So once shit goes down, and he has Rosenbaum chasing him through that parking lot, where does that leave us?

 

[Confucamus]

Zero accountability? You don't think any rioters from those protests was charged with any crime? And which of the people that Kyle shot were associated with Antifa or BLM? Do you also think that everyone that showed up at the Capitol building were part of the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys?

Nowhere near enough were charged. I saw an article this morning where two of those thugs were sentenced fr setting a cop car on fire, although one of them only got 27 months. https://www.foxnews.com/us/pennsylvania-men-prison-destroying-police-car-floyd-protest

That's rare and this is coming off hundreds and hundreds of these protestors' charges being dropped. How many of these people are being held accountable for pulling down the statues illegally?

 

[jeremyemilio]

Again I think this shows your bias.

If this was some minority inner city kid illegally carrying a gun, that shot a black guy trying to mug him, and then shot two other black guys that tried to keep him from running away would be a better analogy. I think he would also be charged by police.

I feel like that case would be doomed to end with the kid in prison, as would this case, unless there was video evidence as clear as the video evidence in this case.

In that circumstances you may be right that the minority inner city kid would be charged, and very likely convicted (due primarily to the fact that he'd very likely have substandard legal representation), but I personally wouldn't change my stance on it being a case of self defense (assuming the events were similar and the kid was being actively attacked by the people "that tried to keep him from running away").

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

How long from this start of jury selection until the actual trial begins?

I think the trial starts next Monday. I had the 6th stuck in my head, but that's Saturday so...

 

[nhbbear]

Obvious how?

Like, if you go to a peaceful protest, and theres a bunch of people screaming, lighting fires, and looting/burning buildings, why exactly are you sticking around?

Does this seem peaceful to you? Do you think maybe the peaceful protest is like a couple blocks away?

fiery, but mostly peaceful

 

[Timmahhhh]

Well he didn’t just violate the gun law, he violated it and chose to do so in an environment which had a high probability of leading to people getting shot. It’s not like he violated the law on a solo Sunday stroll through the woods, he purposely brought the illegal weapon to the one of the most contentious and out of control environments possible and then had to shoot his way out when going to that dangerous environment put him in danger.

.

The only question that has a legal bearing on his right to shoot is whether or not he was in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. If he was in reasonable fear the killings were justified and there's nothing else to the analysis. The misdemeanor weapon possession is completely divorced from that analysis.

The Criminal law concept of causation requires that the harm must follow from a culpable act. Here carrying a gun is not a culpable act, but the shooting potentially could be if not justified. Let's say for instance, if he was 18 and could legally possess the gun and it was a justifiable shoot, the fact that he was 17 does not turn it into first degree murder.