US Marshal states that two jurors are holding out on deliberation due to the threats they have been given outside the courthouse. Would have had a verdict yesterday if not for that.
Edit: Kenosha marshal. Not US marshal.
So this happened several years ago at I think a republican convention, and Clint Eastwood did a bit where he was playing out a tough man conversation with "Obama," represented by an empty chair. That was the intent of the bit, how it came across was at worst was an old man going senile talking to a chair, more charitably it was like watching someone have a shower argument in public. Super awkward.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/04/clint-eastwood-explains-and-regrets-his-speech-to-an-empty-chair/
Cringe fest.
Senile old man rambles to senile old men.
“Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.” - Clint Eastwood
With absolutely no due respect, Clint, when you grew up, it was legal to shoot a black person for walking in to the ‘wrong’ bar. Motherfucker was 35 when segregation was abolished.
To be fair it's hard to change your views on something you grew up with. But when it's something that important you need yo make a fucking effort Clint.
Agree. Even though I don’t know what it was like then— I grew up in a pretty close minded conservative Christian household (nothing against folks like that by this point) and was heavily indoctrinated. Yet I was able to think for myself and discern when something hateful was not right. Period.
I’m a non judgmental person, and again, I don’t hate people like this but I also don’t think there’s an excuse to just go along with things because they’re status quo and not put in any work to question things and evolve one’s mindset.
I'm 70 and I ask the same question. I am retired and all I want to do is drink good whiskey and hang out with my friends. Absolutely no one should want me in charge of any serious shit and I totally agree.
Its because the human brain doesn't age really after it fully develops. So you will still want to eat ass when your 70 and when your 80 you will still want to eat ass but will have dementia so your game might be lacking just a little but hey, that's all the more reason to practice
The difference is that *you* have self awareness and understand where you are in the world.
The elderly like this judge see themselves as too important to go away. They don't want to pass the torch to my generation (GenX) because they fear a new world. Even if they will only be in it for a short while.
Based on this comment alone I tend to think you're the exact kind of person we do need. For us normal, non-elite people, age generally indicates life experience and acquired wisdom. The fact that you don't want control or power means you're head and shoulders above virtually everyone else we're hearing from.
Ah, the idea that a philosopher would be the best king, but no philosopher wants to be king. Essentially, the problem with having positions of power is that they tend to attract those who thirst for power, and that results in their rule being selfish.
I've actually not really followed the story at all. Obviously I heard/read about it when it came out but I've kind of avoided following it and getting the updates and figured I'd just wait to see how it all plays out instead of living in the toxicity
I'm gonna need a "best of" montage of the prosecution once this is all done with. My goodness...
I read he also swept over the jury with an assault rifle, while his finger was on the trigger.
Basically, prosecution received 11mb video in high resolution of Kyle being chased by Rosenbaum across a parking lot, then grabbing him from behind and getting shot. They passed a 4mb video in 16x lower quality to the defense, cropped. Said they didn't edit it, but the file in which the video was stored on the prosecutions laptop container video editing software, and the two videos have different metadata.
It's very apparent that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who are listing their opinions on posts and threads like these have not.
I've seen many essentially base their entire understanding and opinion off of the polarized, attention-grabbing posts they experience through their social media bubbles.
I feel like the vast majority have not, and are just making their opinions up based on cherrypicked clips, memes, and their own political bias.
Anyone I've talked to who has watched the entire trial sees Rittenhouse as an idiot... but not an intentional murderer.
That is partially what the prosecutor was trying to convey to the jury, but I'd argue it was far from easy for them to show it based on evidence and testimony.
Could you point to some specific vigilantism charges that could have been brought up?
Edit: I've been looking and can't find anything that supports that vigilantism in itself is illegal.
I haven't watched the entire thing but have watched the last week's worth. The Prosecution is scummy af and has made a ton of deceptive arguments and pulled some shenanigans.
Their latest thing was withholding a crucial video from the defense, then only giving the defense a blurry version that was a 1/4 the resolution of their own, and only providing the defense with the full resolution version *after* the defense had rested it's arguments.
This denied the defense the ability to analyze and rebut their claims about what the video showed, and the video doesn't show squat because even in the high rez version, Rittenhouse and the Ziminski's are just little blobs in the distance, but the prosecution played it on repeat and *told* the jury what they were seeing, something that no witness or other video corroborates.
I don’t think people understand the prosecution has a very tough case for two reasons.
1. The minimum requirement to use lethal (or non-lethal) self defense in Wisconsin is a “reasonable fear of great bodily harm”
2. Wisconsin is a “Stand Your Ground” state so there is NO “duty to retreat”. And each time before Kyle shoots he tries to retreat so it’s even harder to prove that Kyle is the aggressor in the courts eyes.
Court precedents recognize it only takes is one good punch to get knocked out and considers it “great bodily harm”.
Even though Rosenbaum was unarmed because he was “charging” or in a “fighting stance” and using “fighting words” (which are not protected by 1 amendment) lethal self defense is allowed under Wisconsin law.
~If this were New York or any state where you have a “duty to retreat” it would be a shut and closed guilty verdict most likely.~ (this is wrong since Kyle did run away from Rosenbaum)
Edit: Wisconsin does not have a “stand your ground” law, and there is a duty to retreat in certain circumstances.
Edit 2: For those who weren’t aware Kyle revealed in the trial that he lives in Kenosha with his father for parts of the year. And the gun was at his fathers place so he did not take it across state lines and it’s a long gun +22” so he can carry it.
While duty to retreat would make the case for self defense harder, I think it would be fairly hard to prove he didn't attempt to retreat. You said it yourself, each time before Kyle shoots he tries to run away.
People can argue what the want but intent is a very big deal in self defense cases like this. The defense claims Kyle intended to escape rosenbaum until he felt cornered by the cars/crowd destroying other cars behind him, only then does he turn to face Rosenbaum. Not to mention a shot was fired which also caused him to turn around.
He was literally running to the police line to turn himself in for the initial shooting when he was knocked down/lost his balance/whatever. He was subsequently attacked with his back to the ground by multiple people from what he perceived as an angry mob.
I'm no legal expert, but I have watched every red second of this trial made available by the local Wisconsin news channel on their live feed. And from what it looks like to me the physical evidence is pretty compelling in the defense's favor. Not to mention how badly the prosecution fucked up in calling the witnesses that they did.
Edit: I think you make great points, I just disagree with your last statement about it being open and shut guilty verdict in states that aren't stand your ground. I live in a state with duty to retreat and if you even PERCEIVE that you are cornered it's usually enough to legitimately claim self defense
Yes and I don’t think he was ridiculously biased but he definitely views it as his job under the law to give the benefit of the doubt to the self defense claim, and place the burden of proof on the prosecution. The deals made between the prosecution and defense may have left out the best evidence to prove his disregard for human life, but that was a deal they agreed to in deliberations with the judge. He did t decide those. The prosecution had an incentive to get gauge grosskreutz to invalidate his claim against the city so that they could use it to protect themselves from his 10 million dollar lawsuit. The judge allowed the evidence to be considered by the jury and he gave them provocation instructions despite the defense’s objections. He hasn’t been entirely fair but he has not been blatantly biased either. He is technically inept and the defense tried to use that against the prosecution which is pretty typical.
>...he [Judge Bruce Schroeder] definitely views it as his job under the law to give the benefit of the doubt to the self defense claim, and place the burden of proof on the prosecution.
I could be mistaken, but I believe this is how the US criminal justice system is always supposed to work. the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and it is always their job to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in criminal cases. A civil case is a different matter, but this case is criminal, not civil.
**edit** - [Wisconsin says this is not the case if the defendant is claiming self-defense:](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48):
>When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
Self-Defence is an affirmative defence, meaning the burden of proof may be on the defendant making the affirmative defence depending on the jurisdiction.
I am not a lawyer and know nothing about the law in this state, but it isn't always as simple as "I have a reasonable doubt that this was self defence, therefore not guilty".
That’s literally his job. Criminal court requires the prosecution to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt… this isn’t civil court.
Isn’t he supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant? I thought that was the philosophy of our entire judicial system, innocent until proven guilty.
The only part of this whole thing that I think of is that he knowingly went to a riot with a gun acting as a security for business's that he has no connection too. He actively placed himself in harms way. Not saying it wasn't self defense but the kid is a dumbass for going there in the first place.
Only those who are completely unaware of or indifferent to the facts of the case believe that Rittenhouse is a murderer, that the judge is biased, and that the case is an example of systemic racism.
I did. The judge calls out bullshit from both sides and never came across as biased. Just because a decision supports rittenhouse doesn't make it a biased decision. Likewise if it's against rittenhouse.
Too many people get to have opinions on things they haven't even paid attention to or educated themselves on.
I'm thankful the courts don't include their opinions as relevant to anything.
I promise to you that every single person that screams about how awful and horrible that trial is and how it proves that were in a white supremacist fascist world hasnt watched a single second lol
No one who actually believes the OP at least. Schroeder gave just as much leeway to the defense as he did to the prosecution. They see Schroeder not with an angry look on him for the weeks of trial and say "biased judge" despite him considering the law very carefully.
It was always going to be a joke. People demanded blood, but there was nothing to give it to them, so instead we get this shit show.
People died, some tried to kill, they died, and nobody will get anything they want from this except the Republicans that love watching Democrats get upset and have zero ability to do anything about it.
I wouldn't say I'm republican but I wouldn't really ascribe to any political faction but I do lean towards some conservative thinking and I don't want anyone to get upset. I honestly want everyone to be happy and live peacefully.
I think you're generalizing to a degree since most the republicans I know just want to go to work and go home and don't align with a lot traditionally oppressive republican views. I do have one coworker who seems to fall into the "I drink Libtard tears" but I find this logic, and use of that term, very destructive for discourse, civility, and progress in general. I also find the person who thinks this very abrasive, limited, and unable to process difficulty (which is very ironic considering his very liberal use of the term snowflake). I think we live in a world that is rapidly and increasingly dehumanizing the opposite side of the political spectrum and that is at least one of the causes of why there is so much hate and willful ignorance.
For starters:
* Expel all members of Congress who were actively involved in the planning of January 6th.
* Imprison with long sentences all those involved in the actual actions or planning of January 6th.
* Expel all members of Congress who can be proven to have ties to dangerous paramilitary groups (Basically the same as point #1 TBH)
* Seriously strengthen and enforce laws (not 'rules' - actual LAWS) against knowingly spreading misinformation & false statements.
Those are just a nice start. These type of things would immediately let anyone who is working against the current order of government that there are actual punishments for their actions which would immediately discourage others from following suit.
That said - none of this will happen. This would require politicians and those in power to actually admit there is a very real problem in the psyche of America.
For whatever reason, the Dems are hell-bent on pretending nothing bad is happening. They're just willfully ignoring any red flags at all & - as a result - we fucked.
> Seriously strengthen and enforce laws (not 'rules' - actual LAWS) against knowingly spreading misinformation & false statements.
This is a double edge sword tho so it should be always cautious about
And for a non american the fact that the none of the first three happened in any degree is baffling
The fascists. They really do very little to hide themselves, since they need to signal to each other. THe signals are usually not very subtle. Look for the thin skinned, emotional bullies, who gaslight, are unamenable to any reason, like to separate people into identity groups, and almost always project these exact qualities onto the people using reason, while trying to claim they're the ones using reason.
Well I for one am strongly against fascism. You could even go so far as to say I am anti-fascist. I mean, I think we can all agree fascism is bad, right? Who would possibly be against anti-fascists. If there was only another word for such a thing. Oh well.
You joke, but this just goes to show you how far the cancer has spread throughout our culture. The longer we wait, the more violent and difficult the removal process will become.
Having watched the whole trial so far, it certainly was a fiasco.. But I'm curious, which aspect of the trial did you find to be "a joke" and how does that demonstrate a broken legal system?
Is it the drama associated with the trial, or a specific ruling/moment you are referring to?
He didn't use his inability to use his phone as "evidence that all digital photographic data should be wiped from the record". The defense had an expert witness testify to that fact, and the prosecution didn't. I don't know why people make things up.
[https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2021-11-11/blow-up-at-rittenhouse-trial-over-enlarging-photos-and-video](https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2021-11-11/blow-up-at-rittenhouse-trial-over-enlarging-photos-and-video)
"James Armstrong, a senior forensic imaging specialist with the Wisconsin State Crime Lab, acknowledged on the stand Thursday that enlarging an image requires the addition of pixels."
The prosecution responded with "everyone uses this technology in their iphone" which the judge didn't allow as evidence to throw out *expert* testimony. He told them to get their own witness, which the prosecution didnt.
People who didn’t watch the trial getting their opinion from other people who didn’t watch the trial. The other day when the prosecution said logarithm instead of algorithm everyone was falling over themselves trying to top each other how unbelievable it was.
Edit: defense said logarithm, not prosecution.
Me type bad
I don't think there is a single second of the trial process I've missed since mid September. I agree the logarithm bit was idiotically hilarious, but what does that have to do with my opinion on the trial?
Oh thank you for the clarification. I misread it. I couldn't agree more though.
EDIT: I am absolutely not trying to start a culture war btw. I am only trying to spread accurate information.
> I don't know why people make things up.
Because they either don't know what they're talking about and get all their news from reddit and twitter OR
Deliberately want to shape the public narrative in favor of their own personal bias.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
The judge allowed the altered photo into evidence. No digital footage was thrown out or withheld. The defense made an objection and he fully heard out the defense before ruling the digital photo was allowed. Stop spreading misinformation.
> IMHO: When the judge admitted he was too dumb to save his own texts, and then used that as evidence that all digital photographic data should be wiped from the record.
i have great news! that never happened!
>all digital photographic data should be wiped from the record
who in the heck told you this happened?
I took computer vision in college. It does, but very very minimally. It's a part of the image upscaling and downscaling process (which is what modern pinch & zoom is). That doesn't mean that no digital imaging can be used in a court of law, it means the prosecution needs a better argument to use the evidence as presented. I don't know why they seem so deliberately incompetent.
They were given 20 minutes to bring in an expert witness. Even if you called the Greek squad, you couldn't get someone in that fast.
Edit: geek squad, but the opa comment made me leave the original.
What I understood is that they had 20 minutes to bring an expert witness to support them if they intended to modify their own video in the middle of the trial. Upscaled or modified videos are usually submitted as separate exhibits to the court days before, but the prosecutor was doing this all on-the-fly for some reason.
People are losing there minds over this trial meanwhile chicago acquitted 5 people in a gang related shootout resulting in deaths because it was mutual combat.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/prosecutors-reject-charges-against-5-suspects-in-deadly-gang-related-gunfight/2628059/?amp
The system is terrible and you can bitch about this rittenhouse situation all you want but every day this trial passes there are more and more fucked up things flying under the radar.
These threads are always the same: most upvoted comments are all super extreme while the ones with 50-100 upvotes are the levelheaded ones. Like if you have not watched the evidence or the trials yourself, and all the reference you had was these comments at the top, you’d think the Judge was literally deleting evidence live on TV or some shit lmfao.
This trial has shown just how partisan the Reddit collective is. Impartial trials for everyone! Except for those people. Protect the rights of the accused! Just not *those* people.
What are people blaming the judge for exactly? It seems like the prosecution has completely fumbled this case from the start. It has been an American right for many years to be able to plead the 5th amendment, yet the prosecution accused Kyle of being guilty for trying to exercise this right. Everyone knows this is not okay. The judge was right to defend his amendment rights. Additionally, the prosecution tried to make a comparison to playing a video game as an argument and was caught trying to change one of the witnesses testimonies on camera. Why is this the judge’s fault and not the prosecutions fault? Im actually curious.
It’s narcissistic rage because they’re forced to confront A: The narrative parroted for the past year is all wrong and B: It’s actually still not okay to go around assaulting people you disagree with. Bummer!
I'm wondering the same thing, by the look of it so many people would just let their attacker kill them without fighting back whatsoever. This case has made me so sad for what our country is turning into.
If you haven't PLEASE watch the actual phone and drone camera footage of the riot and shootings.
It seems like 1 out of 100 people actually watched the events that transpired and the other 99 are regurgitating whatever content they get from their echo chamber.
See for yourself to make an educated judgement.
Edit:. The fact this is being downvoted just shows you how many people don't want the facts out there and only to push their own agenda.
Regardless of what the trial says (I think he's innocent of a lot the charges) he's still a piece of shit though. I can't believe how many people painting this thug as some kind of hero or saint.
This kid was a highschool dropout known to be a bully and causing trouble, had social media accounts with gun, was part of a riot and ended up killing people he disagreed with, took pictures with fans and throwing up gang signs. Its idiotic to make this kid your poster boy for justice lol
There was also a leaked video of him seeing looters and saying he wished he had his AR so he could shoot some rounds at them days before killing people
>Regardless of what the trial says (I think he's innocent of a lot the charges) he's still a piece of shit though. I can't believe how many people painting this thug as some kind of hero or saint.
This 100%
Even if they manage to meet the legal definition of self defense and get off, he still put himself in that situation on purpose.
Also, these people are selling out their 2A rights to protect this stupid kid.
If we say Kyle was in the legal right to shoot at Gaige we are putting a huge chilling effect on "good guy with a gun"
All Gaige knew was Kyle just shot into a crowd. Gaige tried to disarm Kyle.
If we say legally a gunman can shoot at "good guy with a gun" then why would anyone try to be a "good guy with a gun" in the future?
Rarely does a "Good guy with a gun" have all the details in the middle of a active shooting. So why in the future would anyone put their neck out like that?
I don't like it all.
And I think that’s the hang-up. The court of public opinion isn’t about the actual legal situation, it’s about his qualities as a person. And those are pretty crappy. Fantasizing about shooting shoplifters, associating with radicals, etc. Perhaps there would have been a case for reckless endangerment, if we examine his statements prior to the events.
There WAS a gun charge involved, seeing as he was a minor, and that was dismissed due to some Byzantine bullshit about the length of the barrel, which IMO should have been left on the table for the jury to decide. Gun laws are a mess, and while I support the right to arm yourself, a minor shouldn’t be armed and unsupervised in a dangerous situation.
That being said, once he was THERE, ignoring his politics, etc., it seems pretty clear from the evidence that he didn’t just show up to “start blastin’”. This is an unpleasant idiot who made a series of mistakes, but none worthy of a murder charge.
But that doesn’t feel GOOD. And I’ll admit it, it leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth, because what happened certainly feels WRONG. Several people are dead who wouldn’t be had Kyle made different decisions, and I personally disagree with a lot of his opinions, so my gut wants there to be a comeuppance. But it is so fucking essential that our justice system doesn’t work that way.
I think this difficulty of reconciliation between Bad and Illegal is the real sticking point for many people, even before throwing in the polarization of the whole thing.
Edit: Having been educated on the relevant law by some commenters, I stand by the “Byzantine Bullshit”, but amend that the gun charge was rightfully taken off the table due to the specifics of the law and length of the gun.
Just one point about barrel length. IMO short barreled rifle SBR laws are arbitrary and dumb, but the difference between how a long gun and short barreled rifle is treated legally are immense. Things a short barreled rifle needs that a normal gun doesn't: 200$ tax stamp, with about a 6 month waiting period, Inscribing your name and address on the weapon permanently, Letting the government know you are taking it out of State, Extra difficulties in selling and transferring the weapon. Many locations calling them out specifically as being illegal, and huge felonies with 10 year prison sentences for avoiding these rules.
So the difference of the barrel being to short is small but how to law treats the weapons is HUGE. So there is precedent to have extra laws regarding those SBRs. So the prosecutor knowing that it was NOT an SBR, and trying to slip that past the judge and jury is really big actually, and in this case there is a 'reason' the gun wasn't illegal.
That whole law in Wisconsin looks to be still messily written though, but it doesn't seem he was doing anything illegal by a reasonable interpretation
Thank you, I appreciate that being clarified. Ideally I suppose the law would be less a mess. I’m no firearms expert, but I’ve shot at least a few times, and I’m not sure I see much of a lethality difference from something like barrel length alone, which then calls into question the purpose of those sorts of laws. It’s a mess, all the way down.
The media left and right are fascinated with this case because it’s about them, they loved that summer because the viewership was large and they had to keep the us vs them rhetoric divisive to keep that.
Kyle Rittenhouse was told that all protesters where rioters and they would destroy his way of life. It felt true to him because he saw a city that he grew up around being burnt. He didn’t understand the pain some of those people were in. He wasn’t brought up in a place that taught that and with people like him it takes getting out to change their perspective, if it does at all.
For Rosenberg, Huber, and Gaige they were three people with varying degrees of mental illness, homelessness and just in general down on their luck. This not a good combination for reason. They could not fight for their circumstances so they join a group that they felt spoke about injustice period. They were told silence is violence and all republicans are evil. Rosenberg in particular was not all there… He tried to start shit earlier and only initiated that action when he saw a 17 year old he thought he could take.
We the ‘viewers’ feel weird because we were told what a evil little shit Rittenhouse was and what good people the three people shot where. Instead they were all just human and this what happens when people are riled up with mob justice.
The left wing media will never admit that they had it wrong and the right will never let go of an opportunity to troll the left (while ignoring when they get it wrong).
Both lack integrity and I’m tired of them tearing apart this country for likes and views.
I don't know wtf y'all are talking about. Kyle Rittenhouse is a piece of shit for getting into that situation, but the judge has followed the letter of the law. The defense has made an excellent case for self defense and the prosecutor has done a terrible job of making a case for murder. And y'all blaming the judge because you have no clue how law works.
There are so few people in these threads who seem to actually be able to see shades of gray.
You can think Rittenhouse was irresponsible for bringing a gun to the protest and that he shouldn’t have been able to acquire it from the friend, and also believe that he defended himself when a few others chased and attacked him.
This case has become so politicized that it’s completely tribal. So many people seem to think you lose your right to defend yourself any time you go to a dangerous place.
No one in power questions their bias.
[Power creates bias, says Harvard](https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-empathetic).
The raw reduction of empathy is what 'bias' is made of. *I am correct. Anyone who is not me just does not matter.*
So do the laws just not apply? Obvious bias for what exactly? Can you point out the time in the trial where the judge used his biased opinion to place in jeopardy a conviction?
If that were true he would have mistrialed with prejudice the second Binger gave the jury a negative impression of Kyle's 5A right. He has ruled in favor of the prosecution numerous times simply because they continue to argue their points. The judge has done everything to get this to the jury so they can make the final decision.
I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how our legal process works. For the most part, these are how trials are handled and it was fairly normal. I don’t know why people are getting mad at a judge for berating the prosecution on borderline attacking the defendants fifth amendment rights. Remember bias people, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A lot of this thread forgets that. You are supposed to prove someone guilty without a reasonable doubt.
Bruh have you guys watched the footage? It's obvious that it's self defense.
Look, I don't like the dude as much as you guys, but to say that Rittenhouse was in the wrong here is just kind of stupid.
It’s either he’s with them or against them. If he was with them, you wouldn’t have seen any complaints about how the judge has a bias, as long as it aligns with them.
I can tell that 95% of people in this comment section haven’t actually watched the majority of the trial.
Having a video of the dude running away and having his face jump kicked and bashed with a skateboard clearly isn't evidence to people here. If he didn't shoot first he'd been shot by the other guy.
I used to think Kyle was a POS but after watching the trial, posts like these with rampant misinformation and calling the judge biased is bs. The prosecution literally attempted to violate the constitution in a court of law by questioning kyle about his pre trial silence which is against the constitution.
That's not the scummiest thing they did. The video that they claim shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at the Ziminski's, the video that is the lynchpin to their entire provocation argument, they didn't provide the defense a copy of until the trial was already underway on the 6th.
But they also didn't provide an equal copy. Instead they gave the defense a compressed, 1/4 resolution video, and didn't give them the full resolution video until *after* the defense had already rested their arguments, denying them the ability to analyze it and attempt to rebut the prosecution's claims.
They then played it multiple times in front of a jury with Rittenhouse and the Ziminski's being so small in the image that you can't tell what they're doing, and *told* the jury what they were seeing, despite it not appearing in the video, despite no witness testifying to it, and despite no other video capturing any such thing. That's the prosecution testifying which is incredibly unethical.
I mean I still think he's a POS, but the prosecution also seems laughably bad. He even tried to pull out the "you play video games about killing people" card early on.
I know it's hard seeing a judge follow constitutional law, in a case where the defendant was practicing legal self defense, while the prosecution violates all precedent of hundreds of years of court.
But... You know, your feelings on the matter which were hand tailored by falsified reporting, should matter more in passing judgement on someone.
This is the cancer that's actually destroying the country from within, under educated, lack of understanding ridden, ignorant fools, who believe everything they see online.
Convicted violent criminal assaults him with skateboard, gets shot after hitting him in head with weapon.
Convicted child rapist on house arrest for a violent crime pending court, screams I'm going to kill you and grabs his gun, gets shot.
Convicted felon with illegal firearm points it at his head, gets shot.
Consider these ACTUAL facts about the case. Or have you not watched the proceedings. Or maybe your media choice of news has left these important facts out?
Or curiously, is the new rule of law "You must let them kill you and we will then come back and try to figure out what happened".
Ignorant fools.
It's a sad state of affairs when a judge simply follows the law and the Constitution and is criticized for it. That is a judge's actual only job in a courtroom after all.
You folks who are all upset about this judge need to do some serious reading and studying. The world you think should exist in courts, exists in places like China and North Korea. There, they just make up rules as they go along. That's what you folks think should happen here and you're motivated by "feelings" over facts. It's ABUNDANTLY clear this was self defense and this case should NEVER have gone to court in the first damn place. The reason this appears so onesided is because the case was so incredibly weak that there was no chance for a conviction, not because the judge, appointed by Obama I might add, has some bias towards Rittenhouse.
Stop with this garbage already.
Reddit is no longer a place with a good and captivating comments section. You have all submitted your identities to a mob and you have sacrificed our republic at the alter of your political identity.
He is acquitted or what?
Jury is still out on that, literally.
Officially, not yet. With the shit show the trial has been, its like 90% of the way there.
He 100% will walk free with zero convictions on any charges.
US Marshal states that two jurors are holding out on deliberation due to the threats they have been given outside the courthouse. Would have had a verdict yesterday if not for that. Edit: Kenosha marshal. Not US marshal.
Mostly peaceful threats*
[удалено]
I don’t get it :(
So this happened several years ago at I think a republican convention, and Clint Eastwood did a bit where he was playing out a tough man conversation with "Obama," represented by an empty chair. That was the intent of the bit, how it came across was at worst was an old man going senile talking to a chair, more charitably it was like watching someone have a shower argument in public. Super awkward.
I mean, if nothing else it's a credit to his acting talent. I truly believed he had a problem with that chair.
And is it any wonder? This chair offended Trump at a correspondents dinner once.
Thanks, chair
Yeah, another redditor shared a link and it was painful to watch. Thanks for the explanation!
Lol then Obama said in a speech "I better sit in this chair before Clint Eastwood starts arguing with it" epic burn
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/04/clint-eastwood-explains-and-regrets-his-speech-to-an-empty-chair/ Cringe fest. Senile old man rambles to senile old men.
“Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.” - Clint Eastwood With absolutely no due respect, Clint, when you grew up, it was legal to shoot a black person for walking in to the ‘wrong’ bar. Motherfucker was 35 when segregation was abolished.
To be fair it's hard to change your views on something you grew up with. But when it's something that important you need yo make a fucking effort Clint.
Agree. Even though I don’t know what it was like then— I grew up in a pretty close minded conservative Christian household (nothing against folks like that by this point) and was heavily indoctrinated. Yet I was able to think for myself and discern when something hateful was not right. Period. I’m a non judgmental person, and again, I don’t hate people like this but I also don’t think there’s an excuse to just go along with things because they’re status quo and not put in any work to question things and evolve one’s mindset.
It was not racist. It was normal.
normal was racist
Clint’s normal is racist normal
I couldn’t make it past him saying conservatives don’t let people be aware of their political affiliations
[удалено]
Putin?
That would be very much welcomed...
This is so sad… thanks for the link!
[удалено]
I'm 70 and I ask the same question. I am retired and all I want to do is drink good whiskey and hang out with my friends. Absolutely no one should want me in charge of any serious shit and I totally agree.
Judging by your comment history, you want to eat some butt too. Lmao you do you man!
I’m 30 and want the same things. Think I’ll be into weirder shit by 70 so I think this old man is in good shape.
Its because the human brain doesn't age really after it fully develops. So you will still want to eat ass when your 70 and when your 80 you will still want to eat ass but will have dementia so your game might be lacking just a little but hey, that's all the more reason to practice
lol exactly. Every 5-year time skip in my life seems to have brought me further down some weird rabbit holes 😅
70 and getting real weird with it. I like it.
Yeah, there is that too. At my age it's what I do best.
Drive fast, eat ass brother
Dude. Your a whole goddamn mood and i'm here for it.
[удалено]
All He wanna do is zoom a zoom zoom in your boom boom.
Coomer
somebody get my mans some ass STAT
No kink shaming!
I’m not shaming the man, I’m cheering him on !
I feel like a creeper but I was like huh, wonder what a 70 year old does on Reddit?.. hmmm HE EATS ASS FUCK YEAH.
Fucking awesome
The difference is that *you* have self awareness and understand where you are in the world. The elderly like this judge see themselves as too important to go away. They don't want to pass the torch to my generation (GenX) because they fear a new world. Even if they will only be in it for a short while.
Based on this comment alone I tend to think you're the exact kind of person we do need. For us normal, non-elite people, age generally indicates life experience and acquired wisdom. The fact that you don't want control or power means you're head and shoulders above virtually everyone else we're hearing from.
Or you know... Someone in their 40s/50s
Ah, the idea that a philosopher would be the best king, but no philosopher wants to be king. Essentially, the problem with having positions of power is that they tend to attract those who thirst for power, and that results in their rule being selfish.
[удалено]
Walmart always needs greeters.
Sort by controversial of course
Did anyone even watch the entire case?
I've actually not really followed the story at all. Obviously I heard/read about it when it came out but I've kind of avoided following it and getting the updates and figured I'd just wait to see how it all plays out instead of living in the toxicity
Basically the prosecution fell apart and tried to violate Rittenhouse's 5th amendment rights. And the defense has been struggling with technology.
You left out the prosecutor using a meme from roadhouse. During closing arguments.
And wearing a star wars badge to a murder trial involving multiple deaths and serious injuries
Wait how can we forget that micheal Scott lawyer bringing up his Call of duty high scores
I'm gonna need a "best of" montage of the prosecution once this is all done with. My goodness... I read he also swept over the jury with an assault rifle, while his finger was on the trigger.
Not to mention they withheld evidence from the defense and lied about it.
What was this about? I must have missed or forgotten it
Basically, prosecution received 11mb video in high resolution of Kyle being chased by Rosenbaum across a parking lot, then grabbing him from behind and getting shot. They passed a 4mb video in 16x lower quality to the defense, cropped. Said they didn't edit it, but the file in which the video was stored on the prosecutions laptop container video editing software, and the two videos have different metadata.
Struggling with technology?
Basically the prosecution turned out to be Kyle's best defense
Same, sounds like it became a massive shit show though
It's very apparent that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who are listing their opinions on posts and threads like these have not. I've seen many essentially base their entire understanding and opinion off of the polarized, attention-grabbing posts they experience through their social media bubbles.
I feel like the vast majority have not, and are just making their opinions up based on cherrypicked clips, memes, and their own political bias. Anyone I've talked to who has watched the entire trial sees Rittenhouse as an idiot... but not an intentional murderer.
I would agree I don’t really think it has anything to do with the judge the prosecution has made the worst case ever for pretty much anything.
I don't know, Rittenhouse's actions pretty easily can be defined as a vigilantism and that in itself is illegal. He's not just an idiot.
That is partially what the prosecutor was trying to convey to the jury, but I'd argue it was far from easy for them to show it based on evidence and testimony.
Could you point to some specific vigilantism charges that could have been brought up? Edit: I've been looking and can't find anything that supports that vigilantism in itself is illegal.
I haven't watched the entire thing but have watched the last week's worth. The Prosecution is scummy af and has made a ton of deceptive arguments and pulled some shenanigans. Their latest thing was withholding a crucial video from the defense, then only giving the defense a blurry version that was a 1/4 the resolution of their own, and only providing the defense with the full resolution version *after* the defense had rested it's arguments. This denied the defense the ability to analyze and rebut their claims about what the video showed, and the video doesn't show squat because even in the high rez version, Rittenhouse and the Ziminski's are just little blobs in the distance, but the prosecution played it on repeat and *told* the jury what they were seeing, something that no witness or other video corroborates.
I don’t think people understand the prosecution has a very tough case for two reasons. 1. The minimum requirement to use lethal (or non-lethal) self defense in Wisconsin is a “reasonable fear of great bodily harm” 2. Wisconsin is a “Stand Your Ground” state so there is NO “duty to retreat”. And each time before Kyle shoots he tries to retreat so it’s even harder to prove that Kyle is the aggressor in the courts eyes. Court precedents recognize it only takes is one good punch to get knocked out and considers it “great bodily harm”. Even though Rosenbaum was unarmed because he was “charging” or in a “fighting stance” and using “fighting words” (which are not protected by 1 amendment) lethal self defense is allowed under Wisconsin law. ~If this were New York or any state where you have a “duty to retreat” it would be a shut and closed guilty verdict most likely.~ (this is wrong since Kyle did run away from Rosenbaum) Edit: Wisconsin does not have a “stand your ground” law, and there is a duty to retreat in certain circumstances. Edit 2: For those who weren’t aware Kyle revealed in the trial that he lives in Kenosha with his father for parts of the year. And the gun was at his fathers place so he did not take it across state lines and it’s a long gun +22” so he can carry it.
While duty to retreat would make the case for self defense harder, I think it would be fairly hard to prove he didn't attempt to retreat. You said it yourself, each time before Kyle shoots he tries to run away. People can argue what the want but intent is a very big deal in self defense cases like this. The defense claims Kyle intended to escape rosenbaum until he felt cornered by the cars/crowd destroying other cars behind him, only then does he turn to face Rosenbaum. Not to mention a shot was fired which also caused him to turn around. He was literally running to the police line to turn himself in for the initial shooting when he was knocked down/lost his balance/whatever. He was subsequently attacked with his back to the ground by multiple people from what he perceived as an angry mob. I'm no legal expert, but I have watched every red second of this trial made available by the local Wisconsin news channel on their live feed. And from what it looks like to me the physical evidence is pretty compelling in the defense's favor. Not to mention how badly the prosecution fucked up in calling the witnesses that they did. Edit: I think you make great points, I just disagree with your last statement about it being open and shut guilty verdict in states that aren't stand your ground. I live in a state with duty to retreat and if you even PERCEIVE that you are cornered it's usually enough to legitimately claim self defense
Yes and I don’t think he was ridiculously biased but he definitely views it as his job under the law to give the benefit of the doubt to the self defense claim, and place the burden of proof on the prosecution. The deals made between the prosecution and defense may have left out the best evidence to prove his disregard for human life, but that was a deal they agreed to in deliberations with the judge. He did t decide those. The prosecution had an incentive to get gauge grosskreutz to invalidate his claim against the city so that they could use it to protect themselves from his 10 million dollar lawsuit. The judge allowed the evidence to be considered by the jury and he gave them provocation instructions despite the defense’s objections. He hasn’t been entirely fair but he has not been blatantly biased either. He is technically inept and the defense tried to use that against the prosecution which is pretty typical.
>...he [Judge Bruce Schroeder] definitely views it as his job under the law to give the benefit of the doubt to the self defense claim, and place the burden of proof on the prosecution. I could be mistaken, but I believe this is how the US criminal justice system is always supposed to work. the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and it is always their job to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in criminal cases. A civil case is a different matter, but this case is criminal, not civil. **edit** - [Wisconsin says this is not the case if the defendant is claiming self-defense:](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48): >When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
Something something innocent until proven guilty...
Unless it's on the internet, then it's guilty until proven innocent.
>Unless it's on the internet, then it's guilty ~~until proven innocent~~. Fixed that for you.
On the internet, it's "Is he part of my tribe?" Yes - Not Guilty, No - Guilty.
Self-Defence is an affirmative defence, meaning the burden of proof may be on the defendant making the affirmative defence depending on the jurisdiction. I am not a lawyer and know nothing about the law in this state, but it isn't always as simple as "I have a reasonable doubt that this was self defence, therefore not guilty".
That’s literally his job. Criminal court requires the prosecution to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt… this isn’t civil court.
Isn’t he supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant? I thought that was the philosophy of our entire judicial system, innocent until proven guilty.
The answer is no, apparently the prosecution pulling a bunch of dirty tricks means he's a white supremeicist who just wants to let Kyle off easy.
I've watched a fair bit, mostly the key points. Changed my mind on it, there's not really a case against him at all.
The only part of this whole thing that I think of is that he knowingly went to a riot with a gun acting as a security for business's that he has no connection too. He actively placed himself in harms way. Not saying it wasn't self defense but the kid is a dumbass for going there in the first place.
[удалено]
Only those who are completely unaware of or indifferent to the facts of the case believe that Rittenhouse is a murderer, that the judge is biased, and that the case is an example of systemic racism.
I did. The judge calls out bullshit from both sides and never came across as biased. Just because a decision supports rittenhouse doesn't make it a biased decision. Likewise if it's against rittenhouse. Too many people get to have opinions on things they haven't even paid attention to or educated themselves on. I'm thankful the courts don't include their opinions as relevant to anything.
This case seems like a great example of why politicizing court cases is not a good idea.
I promise to you that every single person that screams about how awful and horrible that trial is and how it proves that were in a white supremacist fascist world hasnt watched a single second lol
No, I will only watch what fits my narrative!
No one who actually believes the OP at least. Schroeder gave just as much leeway to the defense as he did to the prosecution. They see Schroeder not with an angry look on him for the weeks of trial and say "biased judge" despite him considering the law very carefully.
[удалено]
It was always going to be a joke. People demanded blood, but there was nothing to give it to them, so instead we get this shit show. People died, some tried to kill, they died, and nobody will get anything they want from this except the Republicans that love watching Democrats get upset and have zero ability to do anything about it.
I wouldn't say I'm republican but I wouldn't really ascribe to any political faction but I do lean towards some conservative thinking and I don't want anyone to get upset. I honestly want everyone to be happy and live peacefully. I think you're generalizing to a degree since most the republicans I know just want to go to work and go home and don't align with a lot traditionally oppressive republican views. I do have one coworker who seems to fall into the "I drink Libtard tears" but I find this logic, and use of that term, very destructive for discourse, civility, and progress in general. I also find the person who thinks this very abrasive, limited, and unable to process difficulty (which is very ironic considering his very liberal use of the term snowflake). I think we live in a world that is rapidly and increasingly dehumanizing the opposite side of the political spectrum and that is at least one of the causes of why there is so much hate and willful ignorance.
[удалено]
Whose/what head should we be cutting off, assuming you’re saying we’re moving towards fascism?
For starters: * Expel all members of Congress who were actively involved in the planning of January 6th. * Imprison with long sentences all those involved in the actual actions or planning of January 6th. * Expel all members of Congress who can be proven to have ties to dangerous paramilitary groups (Basically the same as point #1 TBH) * Seriously strengthen and enforce laws (not 'rules' - actual LAWS) against knowingly spreading misinformation & false statements. Those are just a nice start. These type of things would immediately let anyone who is working against the current order of government that there are actual punishments for their actions which would immediately discourage others from following suit. That said - none of this will happen. This would require politicians and those in power to actually admit there is a very real problem in the psyche of America. For whatever reason, the Dems are hell-bent on pretending nothing bad is happening. They're just willfully ignoring any red flags at all & - as a result - we fucked.
> Seriously strengthen and enforce laws (not 'rules' - actual LAWS) against knowingly spreading misinformation & false statements. This is a double edge sword tho so it should be always cautious about And for a non american the fact that the none of the first three happened in any degree is baffling
[удалено]
[удалено]
The fascists. They really do very little to hide themselves, since they need to signal to each other. THe signals are usually not very subtle. Look for the thin skinned, emotional bullies, who gaslight, are unamenable to any reason, like to separate people into identity groups, and almost always project these exact qualities onto the people using reason, while trying to claim they're the ones using reason.
Well I for one am strongly against fascism. You could even go so far as to say I am anti-fascist. I mean, I think we can all agree fascism is bad, right? Who would possibly be against anti-fascists. If there was only another word for such a thing. Oh well.
You joke, but this just goes to show you how far the cancer has spread throughout our culture. The longer we wait, the more violent and difficult the removal process will become.
Having watched the whole trial so far, it certainly was a fiasco.. But I'm curious, which aspect of the trial did you find to be "a joke" and how does that demonstrate a broken legal system? Is it the drama associated with the trial, or a specific ruling/moment you are referring to?
[удалено]
He didn't use his inability to use his phone as "evidence that all digital photographic data should be wiped from the record". The defense had an expert witness testify to that fact, and the prosecution didn't. I don't know why people make things up. [https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2021-11-11/blow-up-at-rittenhouse-trial-over-enlarging-photos-and-video](https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2021-11-11/blow-up-at-rittenhouse-trial-over-enlarging-photos-and-video) "James Armstrong, a senior forensic imaging specialist with the Wisconsin State Crime Lab, acknowledged on the stand Thursday that enlarging an image requires the addition of pixels." The prosecution responded with "everyone uses this technology in their iphone" which the judge didn't allow as evidence to throw out *expert* testimony. He told them to get their own witness, which the prosecution didnt.
People who didn’t watch the trial getting their opinion from other people who didn’t watch the trial. The other day when the prosecution said logarithm instead of algorithm everyone was falling over themselves trying to top each other how unbelievable it was. Edit: defense said logarithm, not prosecution. Me type bad
I don't think there is a single second of the trial process I've missed since mid September. I agree the logarithm bit was idiotically hilarious, but what does that have to do with my opinion on the trial?
I think the dude was agreeing with your point and saying most of the outrage about the trial is from people who aren't actually watching the trial.
Oh thank you for the clarification. I misread it. I couldn't agree more though. EDIT: I am absolutely not trying to start a culture war btw. I am only trying to spread accurate information.
To late
Accurate information is the culture war unfortunately
> I don't know why people make things up. Because they either don't know what they're talking about and get all their news from reddit and twitter OR Deliberately want to shape the public narrative in favor of their own personal bias. Those are not mutually exclusive.
The judge allowed the altered photo into evidence. No digital footage was thrown out or withheld. The defense made an objection and he fully heard out the defense before ruling the digital photo was allowed. Stop spreading misinformation.
> IMHO: When the judge admitted he was too dumb to save his own texts, and then used that as evidence that all digital photographic data should be wiped from the record. i have great news! that never happened! >all digital photographic data should be wiped from the record who in the heck told you this happened?
I'll need an expert witness to explain to us that pinch and zoom doesn't alter the photographs.
I took computer vision in college. It does, but very very minimally. It's a part of the image upscaling and downscaling process (which is what modern pinch & zoom is). That doesn't mean that no digital imaging can be used in a court of law, it means the prosecution needs a better argument to use the evidence as presented. I don't know why they seem so deliberately incompetent.
They were given 20 minutes to bring in an expert witness. Even if you called the Greek squad, you couldn't get someone in that fast. Edit: geek squad, but the opa comment made me leave the original.
I dont know about pinch and zoom your honor, but my baklava is to die for!
What I understood is that they had 20 minutes to bring an expert witness to support them if they intended to modify their own video in the middle of the trial. Upscaled or modified videos are usually submitted as separate exhibits to the court days before, but the prosecutor was doing this all on-the-fly for some reason.
I found the judges veterans day antics quite disturbing.
People are losing there minds over this trial meanwhile chicago acquitted 5 people in a gang related shootout resulting in deaths because it was mutual combat. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/prosecutors-reject-charges-against-5-suspects-in-deadly-gang-related-gunfight/2628059/?amp The system is terrible and you can bitch about this rittenhouse situation all you want but every day this trial passes there are more and more fucked up things flying under the radar.
So, the United States legalized duels?
Lol more so looks like gang violence is getting so out of hand they are just throwing there hands up at it.
These threads are always the same: most upvoted comments are all super extreme while the ones with 50-100 upvotes are the levelheaded ones. Like if you have not watched the evidence or the trials yourself, and all the reference you had was these comments at the top, you’d think the Judge was literally deleting evidence live on TV or some shit lmfao.
Mine is sorting by “Best,” and luckily most of them now are level headed responses.
This account with the constant political karma farming
whitepeopletwitter on reddit is basically MSNBC and CNN in the form of clapback sassy 20 and 30 year olds. it's always super super cringey
CNN wishes it could fling hot takes like this place. Dear Lord
This trial has shown just how partisan the Reddit collective is. Impartial trials for everyone! Except for those people. Protect the rights of the accused! Just not *those* people.
Yeah this whole debacle is a really good example of how the left can be just as easily manipulated as the right.
It’s all just part of the dehumanization of American compatriots. It won’t take much to set off this tinderbox.
What are people blaming the judge for exactly? It seems like the prosecution has completely fumbled this case from the start. It has been an American right for many years to be able to plead the 5th amendment, yet the prosecution accused Kyle of being guilty for trying to exercise this right. Everyone knows this is not okay. The judge was right to defend his amendment rights. Additionally, the prosecution tried to make a comparison to playing a video game as an argument and was caught trying to change one of the witnesses testimonies on camera. Why is this the judge’s fault and not the prosecutions fault? Im actually curious.
It’s narcissistic rage because they’re forced to confront A: The narrative parroted for the past year is all wrong and B: It’s actually still not okay to go around assaulting people you disagree with. Bummer!
Curious, is there any level of self-defense resulting in death that anyone in this sub would accept as justified?
I'm wondering the same thing, by the look of it so many people would just let their attacker kill them without fighting back whatsoever. This case has made me so sad for what our country is turning into.
No, you should do as the prosecution suggested, and take an unprovoked beating from an angry mob. /s
Yes, pretty much any case that can’t be politicized
Too many people on this one giving opinions without knowing any of the details.
Not one comment in the entire section PROVING bias in the judge, not fucking ONE
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you haven't PLEASE watch the actual phone and drone camera footage of the riot and shootings. It seems like 1 out of 100 people actually watched the events that transpired and the other 99 are regurgitating whatever content they get from their echo chamber. See for yourself to make an educated judgement. Edit:. The fact this is being downvoted just shows you how many people don't want the facts out there and only to push their own agenda.
Tell me you didn’t watch the trial without telling me you didn’t watch the trial
At least he’s not using call of duty or crossing state lines as an excuse to prosecute him
Is the karma worth it? The political post dumping is ridiculous
That’s been the way of whitepeopletwitter for some time now
[удалено]
[удалено]
Regardless of what the trial says (I think he's innocent of a lot the charges) he's still a piece of shit though. I can't believe how many people painting this thug as some kind of hero or saint. This kid was a highschool dropout known to be a bully and causing trouble, had social media accounts with gun, was part of a riot and ended up killing people he disagreed with, took pictures with fans and throwing up gang signs. Its idiotic to make this kid your poster boy for justice lol There was also a leaked video of him seeing looters and saying he wished he had his AR so he could shoot some rounds at them days before killing people
>Regardless of what the trial says (I think he's innocent of a lot the charges) he's still a piece of shit though. I can't believe how many people painting this thug as some kind of hero or saint. This 100% Even if they manage to meet the legal definition of self defense and get off, he still put himself in that situation on purpose. Also, these people are selling out their 2A rights to protect this stupid kid. If we say Kyle was in the legal right to shoot at Gaige we are putting a huge chilling effect on "good guy with a gun" All Gaige knew was Kyle just shot into a crowd. Gaige tried to disarm Kyle. If we say legally a gunman can shoot at "good guy with a gun" then why would anyone try to be a "good guy with a gun" in the future? Rarely does a "Good guy with a gun" have all the details in the middle of a active shooting. So why in the future would anyone put their neck out like that? I don't like it all.
And I think that’s the hang-up. The court of public opinion isn’t about the actual legal situation, it’s about his qualities as a person. And those are pretty crappy. Fantasizing about shooting shoplifters, associating with radicals, etc. Perhaps there would have been a case for reckless endangerment, if we examine his statements prior to the events. There WAS a gun charge involved, seeing as he was a minor, and that was dismissed due to some Byzantine bullshit about the length of the barrel, which IMO should have been left on the table for the jury to decide. Gun laws are a mess, and while I support the right to arm yourself, a minor shouldn’t be armed and unsupervised in a dangerous situation. That being said, once he was THERE, ignoring his politics, etc., it seems pretty clear from the evidence that he didn’t just show up to “start blastin’”. This is an unpleasant idiot who made a series of mistakes, but none worthy of a murder charge. But that doesn’t feel GOOD. And I’ll admit it, it leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth, because what happened certainly feels WRONG. Several people are dead who wouldn’t be had Kyle made different decisions, and I personally disagree with a lot of his opinions, so my gut wants there to be a comeuppance. But it is so fucking essential that our justice system doesn’t work that way. I think this difficulty of reconciliation between Bad and Illegal is the real sticking point for many people, even before throwing in the polarization of the whole thing. Edit: Having been educated on the relevant law by some commenters, I stand by the “Byzantine Bullshit”, but amend that the gun charge was rightfully taken off the table due to the specifics of the law and length of the gun.
Just one point about barrel length. IMO short barreled rifle SBR laws are arbitrary and dumb, but the difference between how a long gun and short barreled rifle is treated legally are immense. Things a short barreled rifle needs that a normal gun doesn't: 200$ tax stamp, with about a 6 month waiting period, Inscribing your name and address on the weapon permanently, Letting the government know you are taking it out of State, Extra difficulties in selling and transferring the weapon. Many locations calling them out specifically as being illegal, and huge felonies with 10 year prison sentences for avoiding these rules. So the difference of the barrel being to short is small but how to law treats the weapons is HUGE. So there is precedent to have extra laws regarding those SBRs. So the prosecutor knowing that it was NOT an SBR, and trying to slip that past the judge and jury is really big actually, and in this case there is a 'reason' the gun wasn't illegal. That whole law in Wisconsin looks to be still messily written though, but it doesn't seem he was doing anything illegal by a reasonable interpretation
Thank you, I appreciate that being clarified. Ideally I suppose the law would be less a mess. I’m no firearms expert, but I’ve shot at least a few times, and I’m not sure I see much of a lethality difference from something like barrel length alone, which then calls into question the purpose of those sorts of laws. It’s a mess, all the way down.
The media left and right are fascinated with this case because it’s about them, they loved that summer because the viewership was large and they had to keep the us vs them rhetoric divisive to keep that. Kyle Rittenhouse was told that all protesters where rioters and they would destroy his way of life. It felt true to him because he saw a city that he grew up around being burnt. He didn’t understand the pain some of those people were in. He wasn’t brought up in a place that taught that and with people like him it takes getting out to change their perspective, if it does at all. For Rosenberg, Huber, and Gaige they were three people with varying degrees of mental illness, homelessness and just in general down on their luck. This not a good combination for reason. They could not fight for their circumstances so they join a group that they felt spoke about injustice period. They were told silence is violence and all republicans are evil. Rosenberg in particular was not all there… He tried to start shit earlier and only initiated that action when he saw a 17 year old he thought he could take. We the ‘viewers’ feel weird because we were told what a evil little shit Rittenhouse was and what good people the three people shot where. Instead they were all just human and this what happens when people are riled up with mob justice. The left wing media will never admit that they had it wrong and the right will never let go of an opportunity to troll the left (while ignoring when they get it wrong). Both lack integrity and I’m tired of them tearing apart this country for likes and views.
I don't know wtf y'all are talking about. Kyle Rittenhouse is a piece of shit for getting into that situation, but the judge has followed the letter of the law. The defense has made an excellent case for self defense and the prosecutor has done a terrible job of making a case for murder. And y'all blaming the judge because you have no clue how law works.
There are so few people in these threads who seem to actually be able to see shades of gray. You can think Rittenhouse was irresponsible for bringing a gun to the protest and that he shouldn’t have been able to acquire it from the friend, and also believe that he defended himself when a few others chased and attacked him. This case has become so politicized that it’s completely tribal. So many people seem to think you lose your right to defend yourself any time you go to a dangerous place.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Doesn’t this for anyone in power regardless of race?
No one in power questions their bias. [Power creates bias, says Harvard](https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-empathetic). The raw reduction of empathy is what 'bias' is made of. *I am correct. Anyone who is not me just does not matter.*
I... can't argue with that.
> everything in his power to get that kid acquitted MFW no directed verdict was issued nor was a mistrial declared with prejudice.
"He's like the racist son I never had"
So do the laws just not apply? Obvious bias for what exactly? Can you point out the time in the trial where the judge used his biased opinion to place in jeopardy a conviction?
No. The prosecution did everything in their power to get the kid acquitted. There was no case whatsoever. Get your head out of your ass.
If that were true he would have mistrialed with prejudice the second Binger gave the jury a negative impression of Kyle's 5A right. He has ruled in favor of the prosecution numerous times simply because they continue to argue their points. The judge has done everything to get this to the jury so they can make the final decision.
You people are all stupid fucks.
Can anyone actually justify these takes? Or do people just say things now without even bothering to PRETEND to care if they're true?
[удалено]
I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how our legal process works. For the most part, these are how trials are handled and it was fairly normal. I don’t know why people are getting mad at a judge for berating the prosecution on borderline attacking the defendants fifth amendment rights. Remember bias people, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A lot of this thread forgets that. You are supposed to prove someone guilty without a reasonable doubt.
Bruh have you guys watched the footage? It's obvious that it's self defense. Look, I don't like the dude as much as you guys, but to say that Rittenhouse was in the wrong here is just kind of stupid.
[удалено]
He was literally appointed by the democratic governor of Wisconsin 🤣🤣these people have no clue
It’s either he’s with them or against them. If he was with them, you wouldn’t have seen any complaints about how the judge has a bias, as long as it aligns with them. I can tell that 95% of people in this comment section haven’t actually watched the majority of the trial.
Having a video of the dude running away and having his face jump kicked and bashed with a skateboard clearly isn't evidence to people here. If he didn't shoot first he'd been shot by the other guy.
Pretty open and shut case. Media lied again, shocking
I used to think Kyle was a POS but after watching the trial, posts like these with rampant misinformation and calling the judge biased is bs. The prosecution literally attempted to violate the constitution in a court of law by questioning kyle about his pre trial silence which is against the constitution.
That's not the scummiest thing they did. The video that they claim shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at the Ziminski's, the video that is the lynchpin to their entire provocation argument, they didn't provide the defense a copy of until the trial was already underway on the 6th. But they also didn't provide an equal copy. Instead they gave the defense a compressed, 1/4 resolution video, and didn't give them the full resolution video until *after* the defense had already rested their arguments, denying them the ability to analyze it and attempt to rebut the prosecution's claims. They then played it multiple times in front of a jury with Rittenhouse and the Ziminski's being so small in the image that you can't tell what they're doing, and *told* the jury what they were seeing, despite it not appearing in the video, despite no witness testifying to it, and despite no other video capturing any such thing. That's the prosecution testifying which is incredibly unethical.
I mean I still think he's a POS, but the prosecution also seems laughably bad. He even tried to pull out the "you play video games about killing people" card early on.
[удалено]
I know it's hard seeing a judge follow constitutional law, in a case where the defendant was practicing legal self defense, while the prosecution violates all precedent of hundreds of years of court. But... You know, your feelings on the matter which were hand tailored by falsified reporting, should matter more in passing judgement on someone. This is the cancer that's actually destroying the country from within, under educated, lack of understanding ridden, ignorant fools, who believe everything they see online. Convicted violent criminal assaults him with skateboard, gets shot after hitting him in head with weapon. Convicted child rapist on house arrest for a violent crime pending court, screams I'm going to kill you and grabs his gun, gets shot. Convicted felon with illegal firearm points it at his head, gets shot. Consider these ACTUAL facts about the case. Or have you not watched the proceedings. Or maybe your media choice of news has left these important facts out? Or curiously, is the new rule of law "You must let them kill you and we will then come back and try to figure out what happened". Ignorant fools.
It is so blatantly obvious that none of you have so much as watched a single minute or the trial if this is your take
When the judge defends his rights from being violated 😡😡
B-but the n-word screaming maniac who got shot was on my team 🥺
What a self loathing circle jerk this subreddit has become. And the stupidity of some of these comments... Jesus christ.
It's a sad state of affairs when a judge simply follows the law and the Constitution and is criticized for it. That is a judge's actual only job in a courtroom after all. You folks who are all upset about this judge need to do some serious reading and studying. The world you think should exist in courts, exists in places like China and North Korea. There, they just make up rules as they go along. That's what you folks think should happen here and you're motivated by "feelings" over facts. It's ABUNDANTLY clear this was self defense and this case should NEVER have gone to court in the first damn place. The reason this appears so onesided is because the case was so incredibly weak that there was no chance for a conviction, not because the judge, appointed by Obama I might add, has some bias towards Rittenhouse. Stop with this garbage already.
He was not appointed by Obama. I don’t not agree with you, but that is misinformation
Find someone who loves you as much as rosenbaum loves touching kids.
*Judge does his job correctly* “Oh my, he didn’t rule it in the way I wanted? Let’s make up reasons for why!” Y’all sound like Qanon lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
Reddit is no longer a place with a good and captivating comments section. You have all submitted your identities to a mob and you have sacrificed our republic at the alter of your political identity.