Fartgate Joe Biden called Rittenhouse a white supremacist which is odd since he killed white people including a child molester and someone who held his own grandmother at knifepoint.

tequila4kapp said:

---

The prosecutor is doing what sometimes happens when a case falls apart. He's trying to get Rittenhouse to make a stupid admission, preferably one that relates to an element of a crime. That's why he's asking what R was thinking or feeling at every step of the way.

It was SO stupid to go to a riot with an AR-16. But once he was there this is obvious self defense for each of the 3 shootings. No opinion on the 3 lesser charges.

---

I disagree. He shot Joseph Rosenbaum, who never touched him and was unarmed, even by Rittenhouse's own admission. That was the first killing. Everything after is therefore Rittenhouse's responsibility also.

To be clear, I don't think the jury will find Rittenhouse guilty. But what kind of society are we going to have if we green light street shootings like this? We are all so inured to gun violence that we accept lethal force to resolve any threat*. Letting Rittenhouse walk makes us all less safe.

* The evidence is dubious that this standard applies to black people

dajo9 said:

---

what kind of society are we going to have if we green light street shootings like this? We are all so inured to gun violence that we accept lethal force to resolve any threat*. Letting Rittenhouse walk makes us all less safe.

* The evidence is dubious that this standard applies to black people

---

Totally agree.
And I thought the prosecutor raising his video game life scored points with me, and that he should have gone after that more.

Rittenhouse created and lived out his video games character life in real time. They could have done a mix video of game vs cell phone footage vs surveillance camera's footage. Splice them together and then ask the jury to pick which was real and which was just an illusion.

The images of Rittenhouse running in the streets from a crowd, firing here & firing there - was like Saturday night over at Kenny's house minus the pizza and Mountain Dew.

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The prosecutor is doing what sometimes happens when a case falls apart. He's trying to get Rittenhouse to make a stupid admission, preferably one that relates to an element of a crime. That's why he's asking what R was thinking or feeling at every step of the way.

It was SO stupid to go to a riot with an AR-16. But once he was there this is obvious self defense for each of the 3 shootings. No opinion on the 3 lesser charges.

---

I disagree. He shot Joseph Rosenbaum, who never touched him and was unarmed, even by Rittenhouse's own admission. That was the first killing. Everything after is therefore Rittenhouse's responsibility also.

To be clear, I don't think the jury will find Rittenhouse guilty. But what kind of society are we going to have if we green light street shootings like this? We are all so inured to gun violence that we accept lethal force to resolve any threat*. Letting Rittenhouse walk makes us all less safe.

* The evidence is dubious that this standard applies to black people

---

This is already the society we live in. Laws are incredibly favorable to the "self defense" defense and any number of pro-shooter defenses like the castle doctrine and stand your ground. The NRA and it's "hillbillies and fruitcakes" (their words, not mine) wouldn't have it any other way.

helltopay1 said:

---

roses...what's in it for you????everybody is white...

---

Black people are allowed to have opinions. This is yet another example of how race-obsessed you are and not in a good way. Maybe you will start 3 threads today calling out g4r while projecting your issues.

helltopay1 said:

---

roses...what's in it for you????everybody is white...

---

This !!!!! This effing part !!!!
https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPd2JmFBd/

Want more proof

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPd2JfLcK/


https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPd2JmjqQ/

This is the fool she is talking about he has been getting dragged for his devotion to racism/white power

Another one for the fake asss patriot https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPd2Jj1yK/

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPd2JhJwn/

To to finish it off for you
https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPd2J8UeH/

Watch them all or not I'm just trying to help your poor soul

Spot on if I can't even have an opinion that means I am not considered an equal(slave -master relationship)
That means everything I say means nothing to them
Also it means they will never be able to learn from me.
This is why this country is falling apart because of people(used lightly) like them, yall are the at the center of so many unnecessary problems.

Directed at the racists on this board

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This kid was a dumba** for walking into that situation armed to the teeth, but I think the chances of a criminal conviction went away once it was confirmed that someone else shot at him first. No matter how biased the judge may be, that one fact pretty much clinches it. Maybe on a lesser charge.

---

The problem with situations like this is that our law is too permissive for use of deadly force. If Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force but here we are.

Even if the prosecutors had a good case, they pretty much blew it. In particular, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge (who is a bit of kook) declares a mistrial after the prosecutor tried to introduce questions about evidence that the judge had already ruled should be excluded.

I would be very surprised if Kyle doesn't walk.

---

the testimony is one of the "victims" advanced on him with a pointed gun (and may have fired). To say if Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force is a little surreal, where without shooting the "victim" who did not die, he couldn't use "deadly" force because Rittenhouse would be dead or seriously harmed. This sound like New York Times spin. This seems like a bunch of violent jerks who got into a shoot out. I would say only in America, but that isn't true anymore.

I'm not sure why there is such a following on this trial other than it is a bunch of violent white boys from different political perspectives involved. A bunch of good old boys shot an unarmed black jogger, Ahmaud Audry, three times and self defense is being used by the shooters. This is a far more interesting case which should garner greater attention.

This whole thing is the result of political frenzies. The first is that the police in Kenosha were in danger and needed saving. These lies were spread by an alderman and social media resulting in the mobilizations of militia- who were not dispersed by the police. Perhaps the most amazing part of the whole evening is that Rittenhouse left the scene.

The second frenzy was post shooting when this was falsely framed as some kind of targeted domestic terrorism assasination. Rittenhouse is 17; he acted stupidly but is a kid who was exploited by many adults

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This kid was a dumba** for walking into that situation armed to the teeth, but I think the chances of a criminal conviction went away once it was confirmed that someone else shot at him first. No matter how biased the judge may be, that one fact pretty much clinches it. Maybe on a lesser charge.

---

The problem with situations like this is that our law is too permissive for use of deadly force. If Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force but here we are.

Even if the prosecutors had a good case, they pretty much blew it. In particular, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge (who is a bit of kook) declares a mistrial after the prosecutor tried to introduce questions about evidence that the judge had already ruled should be excluded.

I would be very surprised if Kyle doesn't walk.

---

the testimony is one of the "victims" advanced on him with a pointed gun (and may have fired). To say if Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force is a little surreal, where without shooting the "victim" who did not die, he couldn't use "deadly" force because Rittenhouse would be dead or seriously harmed. This sound like New York Times spin. This seems like a bunch of violent jerks who got into a shoot out. I would say only in America, but that isn't true anymore.

I'm not sure why there is such a following on this trial other than it is a bunch of violent white boys from different political perspectives involved. A bunch of good old boys shot an unarmed black jogger, Ahmaud Audry, three times and self defense is being used by the shooters. This is a far more interesting case which should garner greater attention.

---

That was the 3rd victim. Rittenhouse aside, if somebody murders a person and is still armed and another person draws a gun on him and is gunned down - that is still murder, not suddenly self defense.

If Rittenhouse hadn't started shooting his gun nobody would have hit him with a skateboard or drawn a gun on him. Rittenhouse is a murderer.

Anarchistbear said:

---

This whole thing is the result of political frenzies. The first is that the police in Kenosha were in danger and needed saving. These lies were spread by an alderman and social media resulting in the mobilizations of militia- who were not dispersed by the police. Perhaps the most amazing part of the whole evening is that Rittenhouse left the scene.

The second frenzy was post shooting when this was framed as some kind of targeted domestic terrorism assasination. Rittenhouse is 17; he acted stupidly but is a kid who was exploited by many adults

---

Rittenhouse left the scene. We all know if he were black he would have been carried out in a bodybag.

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

This whole thing is the result of political frenzies. The first is that the police in Kenosha were in danger and needed saving. These lies were spread by an alderman and social media resulting in the mobilizations of militia- who were not dispersed by the police. Perhaps the most amazing part of the whole evening is that Rittenhouse left the scene.

The second frenzy was post shooting when this was framed as some kind of targeted domestic terrorism assasination. Rittenhouse is 17; he acted stupidly but is a kid who was exploited by many adults

---

Rittenhouse left the scene. We all know if he were black he would have been carried out in a bodybag.

---

No, we don't

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This kid was a dumba** for walking into that situation armed to the teeth, but I think the chances of a criminal conviction went away once it was confirmed that someone else shot at him first. No matter how biased the judge may be, that one fact pretty much clinches it. Maybe on a lesser charge.

---

The problem with situations like this is that our law is too permissive for use of deadly force. If Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force but here we are.

Even if the prosecutors had a good case, they pretty much blew it. In particular, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge (who is a bit of kook) declares a mistrial after the prosecutor tried to introduce questions about evidence that the judge had already ruled should be excluded.

I would be very surprised if Kyle doesn't walk.

---

the testimony is one of the "victims" advanced on him with a pointed gun (and may have fired). To say if Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force is a little surreal, where without shooting the "victim" who did not die, he couldn't use "deadly" force because Rittenhouse would be dead or seriously harmed. This sound like New York Times spin. This seems like a bunch of violent jerks who got into a shoot out. I would say only in America, but that isn't true anymore.

I'm not sure why there is such a following on this trial other than it is a bunch of violent white boys from different political perspectives involved. A bunch of good old boys shot an unarmed black jogger, Ahmaud Audry, three times and self defense is being used by the shooters. This is a far more interesting case which should garner greater attention.

---

If the kid didn't have an assault rifle he wouldn't have been in danger. I believe he was a semi-trained medic who could have focused his energy on that, but instead showed up as an armed vigilante to voluntarily "protect" other people's property.

He shouldn't have been there in the first place and showed up because all of the radicalizing energy in conservative circles last year told him to oppose police brutality protesters.

To use a random legal concept, brandishing an AR-15 at a police brutality protest is an "attractive nuisance". I feel very comfortable that his AR-15 is the very thing that placed him in danger.

kelly09 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

This whole thing is the result of political frenzies. The first is that the police in Kenosha were in danger and needed saving. These lies were spread by an alderman and social media resulting in the mobilizations of militia- who were not dispersed by the police. Perhaps the most amazing part of the whole evening is that Rittenhouse left the scene.

The second frenzy was post shooting when this was framed as some kind of targeted domestic terrorism assasination. Rittenhouse is 17; he acted stupidly but is a kid who was exploited by many adults

---

Rittenhouse left the scene. We all know if he were black he would have been carried out in a bodybag.

---

No, we don't

---

You know who didn't get their day in court to plea self defense and who was carried out in a bodybag? Michael Reinohl. He wasn't black, just "on the other side".

Here is what President Trump said about his extrajudicial killing:
"They knew who he was. They didn't want to arrest him, and 15 minutes - that ended".

Fascists

Could you imagine making this guy your political hero? LOL couldn't be me. https://t.co/moj9RQrvrL

— Nas (@nasescobar316) November 11, 2021

any one know if this is true?

I knew I smelled nepotism https://t.co/78PEDxuzuM

— KJ (AKA hoodmistress) (@indigenoussista) November 12, 2021

eyes drier than ben shapiro's wife pic.twitter.com/6fHQTFZ0be

— marvel's next wolverine (@kaichoyce) November 11, 2021

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

This whole thing is the result of political frenzies. The first is that the police in Kenosha were in danger and needed saving. These lies were spread by an alderman and social media resulting in the mobilizations of militia- who were not dispersed by the police. Perhaps the most amazing part of the whole evening is that Rittenhouse left the scene.

The second frenzy was post shooting when this was framed as some kind of targeted domestic terrorism assasination. Rittenhouse is 17; he acted stupidly but is a kid who was exploited by many adults

---

Rittenhouse left the scene. We all know if he were black he would have been carried out in a bodybag.

---

Welp...
https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/suspected-texas-high-school-shooter-released-from-jail/

going4roses said:

---

eyes drier than ben shapiro's wife pic.twitter.com/6fHQTFZ0be

— marvel's next wolverine (@kaichoyce) November 11, 2021

---

I think it's pretty bad for public figures like Lebron to be judging critically whether his emotional stress was real or not.

going4roses said:

---

any one know if this is true?

I knew I smelled nepotism https://t.co/78PEDxuzuM

— KJ (AKA hoodmistress) (@indigenoussista) November 12, 2021

---

If what is true???
Looks like he's merely in a photo with him. What's the relationship there? And how does it pertain to the case?

concordtom said:

---

going4roses said:

---

any one know if this is true?

I knew I smelled nepotism https://t.co/78PEDxuzuM

— KJ (AKA hoodmistress) (@indigenoussista) November 12, 2021

---

If what is true???
Looks like he's merely in a photo with him. What's the relationship there? And how does it pertain to the case?

---

Ricky Schroeder bailed Kyle Rittenhouse out of jail. I have no idea if there is any relationship to the tragically biased Judge.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I feel very comfortable that his AR-15 is the very thing that placed him in danger.

---

There is ZERO doubt in anyone's mind that Rittenhouse felt threatened and was chased ONLY because he had a big gun.
He's lucky he wasn't physically harmed.
Kid been playing video game hero - damned fool!

If he ends up in jail, he'd better watch his back. He's a target to get his azz kicked by hardened criminals. I certainly wouldn't hope for that, but he needs to pay penance for what he created and did.
Sadly, he'll probably become a millionaire selling books and appearance fees.
We live in a lame society.

This blew my mind.
Talk about pre-biasing the jury!
This judge is nuts. But there's nothing to do about that, right? I mean, even if the jury finds Rittenhouse guilty, he can kick the verdict out and declare him innocent, right? With no recourse, yes?

AP reporter @mtarm, who's in the courtroom and can see the jury, says the jurors applauded as well: https://t.co/Q7HYbOSAd1

— Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs (@NickAtNews) November 11, 2021

concordtom said:

---

This blew my mind.
Talk about pre-biasing the jury!
This judge is nuts. But there's nothing to do about that, right? I mean, even if the jury finds Rittenhouse guilty, he can kick the verdict out and declare him innocent, right? With no recourse, yes?

AP reporter @mtarm, who's in the courtroom and can see the jury, says the jurors applauded as well: https://t.co/Q7HYbOSAd1

— Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs (@NickAtNews) November 11, 2021

---

CAIiENFg5M5zGPl-3NHilwgP0zEqFwgEKg4IACoGCAow9vBNMK3UCDCFpJYH

wifeisafurd said:

---

CAIiENFg5M5zGPl-3NHilwgP0zEqFwgEKg4IACoGCAow9vBNMK3UCDCFpJYH

An attorney for one of the white men standing trial in the death of Ahmaud Arbery told the judge Thursday he doesn't want "any more Black pastors" in the courtroom after the Rev. Al Sharpton sat with the slain man's family.

Defense Attorney Gough told Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley that he was concerned Sharpton's presence in court Wednesday was an attempt to intimidate the disproportionately white jury hearing the case. The jury was not in the courtroom when he made the remarks.

---

Stupid post, wife, if you are trying to say these things are equal, and you are smarter than that.
1. The person making the statement is the defense attorney, not the judge who is supposed to be Switzerland.
2. THE JURY WASN'T IN THE ROOM WHEN IT HAPPENED.

Come on, man. Don't get my blood to boil.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This kid was a dumba** for walking into that situation armed to the teeth, but I think the chances of a criminal conviction went away once it was confirmed that someone else shot at him first. No matter how biased the judge may be, that one fact pretty much clinches it. Maybe on a lesser charge.

---

The problem with situations like this is that our law is too permissive for use of deadly force. If Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force but here we are.

Even if the prosecutors had a good case, they pretty much blew it. In particular, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge (who is a bit of kook) declares a mistrial after the prosecutor tried to introduce questions about evidence that the judge had already ruled should be excluded.

I would be very surprised if Kyle doesn't walk.

---

the testimony is one of the "victims" advanced on him with a pointed gun (and may have fired). To say if Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force is a little surreal, where without shooting the "victim" who did not die, he couldn't use "deadly" force because Rittenhouse would be dead or seriously harmed. This sound like New York Times spin. This seems like a bunch of violent jerks who got into a shoot out. I would say only in America, but that isn't true anymore.

I'm not sure why there is such a following on this trial other than it is a bunch of violent white boys from different political perspectives involved. A bunch of good old boys shot an unarmed black jogger, Ahmaud Audry, three times and self defense is being used by the shooters. This is a far more interesting case which should garner greater attention.

---

That was the 3rd victim. Rittenhouse aside, if somebody murders a person and is still armed and another person draws a gun on him and is gunned down - that is still murder, not suddenly self defense.

If Rittenhouse hadn't started shooting his gun nobody would have hit him with a skateboard or drawn a gun on him. Rittenhouse is a murderer.

---

You are entitled to your opinions, but not for own facts. The testimony is there was less than three seconds passed between the time a protester fired a shot and Rittenhouse opened fire. The videographer told the jury the first person to be shot was acting "physically aggressive" even before his encounter with Rittenhouse, threatened him, threw a plastic bag at him and chased him. You never know what a jury thinks, but you continually sound off on legal matters, and then defend your incorrect comments when the legal decision doesn't go your way by defecting. If I want to listen to opinion on which way a jury goes, the guy with the legal training is who I go to and if Unit 2 says its over for the prosecution, it is likely over for the prosecution.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This kid was a dumba** for walking into that situation armed to the teeth, but I think the chances of a criminal conviction went away once it was confirmed that someone else shot at him first. No matter how biased the judge may be, that one fact pretty much clinches it. Maybe on a lesser charge.

---

The problem with situations like this is that our law is too permissive for use of deadly force. If Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force but here we are.

Even if the prosecutors had a good case, they pretty much blew it. In particular, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge (who is a bit of kook) declares a mistrial after the prosecutor tried to introduce questions about evidence that the judge had already ruled should be excluded.

I would be very surprised if Kyle doesn't walk.

---

the testimony is one of the "victims" advanced on him with a pointed gun (and may have fired). To say if Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force is a little surreal, where without shooting the "victim" who did not die, he couldn't use "deadly" force because Rittenhouse would be dead or seriously harmed. This sound like New York Times spin. This seems like a bunch of violent jerks who got into a shoot out. I would say only in America, but that isn't true anymore.

I'm not sure why there is such a following on this trial other than it is a bunch of violent white boys from different political perspectives involved. A bunch of good old boys shot an unarmed black jogger, Ahmaud Audry, three times and self defense is being used by the shooters. This is a far more interesting case which should garner greater attention.

---

That was the 3rd victim. Rittenhouse aside, if somebody murders a person and is still armed and another person draws a gun on him and is gunned down - that is still murder, not suddenly self defense.

If Rittenhouse hadn't started shooting his gun nobody would have hit him with a skateboard or drawn a gun on him. Rittenhouse is a murderer.

---

You are entitled to your opinions, but not for own facts. The testimony is there was less than three seconds passed between the time a protester fired a shot and Rittenhouse opened fire. The videographer told the jury the first person to be shot was acting "physically aggressive" even before his encounter with Rittenhouse, threatened him, threw a plastic bag at him and chased him. You never know what a jury thinks, but you continually sound off on legal matters, and then defend your incorrect comments when the legal decision doesn't go your way by defecting. If I want to listen to opinion on which way a jury goes, the guy with the legal training is who I go to and if Unit 2 says its over for the prosecution, it is likely over for the prosecution.

---

What part of me saying, "to be clear, I don't think the jury will find Rittenhouse guilty" did you not understand?

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This kid was a dumba** for walking into that situation armed to the teeth, but I think the chances of a criminal conviction went away once it was confirmed that someone else shot at him first. No matter how biased the judge may be, that one fact pretty much clinches it. Maybe on a lesser charge.

---

The problem with situations like this is that our law is too permissive for use of deadly force. If Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force but here we are.

Even if the prosecutors had a good case, they pretty much blew it. In particular, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge (who is a bit of kook) declares a mistrial after the prosecutor tried to introduce questions about evidence that the judge had already ruled should be excluded.

I would be very surprised if Kyle doesn't walk.

---

the testimony is one of the "victims" advanced on him with a pointed gun (and may have fired). To say if Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force is a little surreal, where without shooting the "victim" who did not die, he couldn't use "deadly" force because Rittenhouse would be dead or seriously harmed. This sound like New York Times spin. This seems like a bunch of violent jerks who got into a shoot out. I would say only in America, but that isn't true anymore.

I'm not sure why there is such a following on this trial other than it is a bunch of violent white boys from different political perspectives involved. A bunch of good old boys shot an unarmed black jogger, Ahmaud Audry, three times and self defense is being used by the shooters. This is a far more interesting case which should garner greater attention.

---

That was the 3rd victim. Rittenhouse aside, if somebody murders a person and is still armed and another person draws a gun on him and is gunned down - that is still murder, not suddenly self defense.

If Rittenhouse hadn't started shooting his gun nobody would have hit him with a skateboard or drawn a gun on him. Rittenhouse is a murderer.

---

You are entitled to your opinions, but not for own facts. The testimony is there was less than three seconds passed between the time a protester fired a shot and Rittenhouse opened fire. The videographer told the jury the first person to be shot was acting "physically aggressive" even before his encounter with Rittenhouse, threatened him, threw a plastic bag at him and chased him. You never know what a jury thinks, but you continually sound off on legal matters, and then defend your incorrect comments when the legal decision doesn't go your way by defecting. If I want to listen to opinion on which way a jury goes, the guy with the legal training is who I go to and if Unit 2 says its over for the prosecution, it is likely over for the prosecution.

---

What part of me saying, "to be clear, I don't think the jury will find Rittenhouse guilty" did you not understand?

---

You need to reflect back on you posts on Rittenhouse over time that he was some vigilante that shot up a bunch of protestors, and now face a credible self-defense challenge because these guys were not simply a bunch of protestors. So you now are defecting that the law is wrong, and he will be found not guilty, but want a minute he the first couple guys were not self defense and pointing a guy at you in a melee is not self defense. This is typical modus operandi. To be clear, you are not clear.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

This kid was a dumba** for walking into that situation armed to the teeth, but I think the chances of a criminal conviction went away once it was confirmed that someone else shot at him first. No matter how biased the judge may be, that one fact pretty much clinches it. Maybe on a lesser charge.

---

The problem with situations like this is that our law is too permissive for use of deadly force. If Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force but here we are.

Even if the prosecutors had a good case, they pretty much blew it. In particular, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge (who is a bit of kook) declares a mistrial after the prosecutor tried to introduce questions about evidence that the judge had already ruled should be excluded.

I would be very surprised if Kyle doesn't walk.

---

the testimony is one of the "victims" advanced on him with a pointed gun (and may have fired). To say if Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself with deadly force is a little surreal, where without shooting the "victim" who did not die, he couldn't use "deadly" force because Rittenhouse would be dead or seriously harmed. This sound like New York Times spin. This seems like a bunch of violent jerks who got into a shoot out. I would say only in America, but that isn't true anymore.

I'm not sure why there is such a following on this trial other than it is a bunch of violent white boys from different political perspectives involved. A bunch of good old boys shot an unarmed black jogger, Ahmaud Audry, three times and self defense is being used by the shooters. This is a far more interesting case which should garner greater attention.

---

That was the 3rd victim. Rittenhouse aside, if somebody murders a person and is still armed and another person draws a gun on him and is gunned down - that is still murder, not suddenly self defense.

If Rittenhouse hadn't started shooting his gun nobody would have hit him with a skateboard or drawn a gun on him. Rittenhouse is a murderer.

---

You are entitled to your opinions, but not for own facts. The testimony is there was less than three seconds passed between the time a protester fired a shot and Rittenhouse opened fire. The videographer told the jury the first person to be shot was acting "physically aggressive" even before his encounter with Rittenhouse, threatened him, threw a plastic bag at him and chased him. You never know what a jury thinks, but you continually sound off on legal matters, and then defend your incorrect comments when the legal decision doesn't go your way by defecting. If I want to listen to opinion on which way a jury goes, the guy with the legal training is who I go to and if Unit 2 says its over for the prosecution, it is likely over for the prosecution.

---

What part of me saying, "to be clear, I don't think the jury will find Rittenhouse guilty" did you not understand?

---

You need to reflect back on you posts on Rittenhouse over time that he was some vigilante that shot up a bunch of protestors, and now face a credible self-defense challenge because these guys were not simply a bunch of protestors. So you now are defecting that the law is wrong, and he will be found not guilty, but want a minute he the first couple guys were not self defense and pointing a guy at you in a melee is not self defense. This is typical modus operandi. To be clear, you are not clear.

---

Speaking of clear - you should re-read what you wrote. You seem flustered. Not your best work. But that's been true for several years.

Just to be clear - I think the kid is 100% responsible for what happened. He showed up looking for trouble and he found it. Our self-defense laws are too favorable to people like him - they typically use some sort of "reasonable" standard that is construed leniently because we have "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the conviction standard. The fact that he showed up to a protest with an assault rifle doesn't prevent him from exercising self-defense under law.

I think people who have guns should be responsible for their guns. This is another area where the mesh of federal and state laws makes it challenging because the rules aren't the same everywhere. This kid was clearly not capable of handling a weapon in these circumstances but the law mostly ignores that fact.

I also think if the kid was black, everything about this case would have been handled differently and he would be doing hard time. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that he isn't black, he will probably walk although he could end up with some minor conviction that won't require meaningful jail time. And he will be celebrated by the right as a hero which will encourage more dopey kids like him to bring assault rifles to protests. I would expect more dips hit vigilantes like this kid in years to come until laws change or (white) people start being held responsible for their actions.

If he wasnt white would he be alive ?
Bailed out ?
Trial going down how it is ?

This whole situation is case example of
Critical Race Theory/Critical Legal Theory
white Supremacy/fragility/ -Systemic Racism

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Just to be clear - I think the kid is 100% responsible for what happened. He showed up looking for trouble and he found it. Our self-defense laws are too favorable to people like him - they typically use some sort of "reasonable" standard that is construed leniently because we have "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the conviction standard. The fact that he showed up to a protest with an assault rifle doesn't prevent him from exercising self-defense under law.

I think people who have guns should be responsible for their guns. This is another area where the mesh of federal and state laws makes it challenging because the rules aren't the same everywhere. This kid was clearly not capable of handling a weapon in these circumstances but the law mostly ignores that fact.

I also think if the kid was black, everything about this case would have been handled differently and he would be doing hard time. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that he isn't black, he will probably walk although he could end up with some minor conviction that won't require meaningful jail time. And he will be celebrated by the right as a hero which will encourage more dopey kids like him to bring assault rifles to protests. I would expect more dips hit vigilantes like this kid in years to come until laws change or (white) people start being held responsible for their actions.

---

Sounds like we are in general agreement

Does he have any tears for the people he killed?

Does he have any honest regrets for the bad decisions he made?

Does he have any words to say guns are instruments of death and that he is not a hero--that when you kill someone you die too?

Does he have the interest of others at heart and beg people to leave the guns behind and learn to understand one another and this whole thing is a tragedy?

...or will he go on FOX and peacock with pride, do appearances at gun shows, and be a poster boy for more violence? Defending this boy because he is aligned against Libs and 'on your team" is just another step into the moral decay that is the modern GOP.

https://theintercept.com/2021/11/11/rittenhouse-trial-judge-blocks-prosecutor-asking-far-right-videographer-biased/

The reactions to the trial are more interesting than the trial itself. It was obvious from the beginning that Rittenhouse acted in self defense based on all the video evidence. So why are the left and media so invested in this case? The victims were all white scumbag losers so there wasn't a solid race narrative to rally around similar to previous trials.

Answer: The left portrayed Rittenhouse from the very beginning last year during that period of protests and riots as a white supremacist who went out that night because he opposed BLM. They probably assumed he was a Trump supporter. Even Biden said he was a white supremacist. (wow, the President of the US actually did say that). This isn't just rhetoric, the left desperately need racism and white supremacy to fuel their agenda for more power and control. They need the country to see more people like Rittenhouse get in trouble and punished to show that we have a serious racism problem.