You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Export thread
Rittenhouse trial, jury is still out
#1
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
But I suspect they won't be out long. The prosecutions case was garbage, so sayeth the defense attorney, Richards. This man is like the real Goliath. (Billy Bob Thornton's character).
This is an obvious case of self defense. Especially after the prosecution failed to understand the gun laws in their own state, and dropped the possession charge on Rittenhouse. In fact the prosecution sometimes didn't even understand basic law. As in when they tried to go after Kyle for not talking to the police right away, (after turning himself in) until he met with his attorney. The judge stopped the court, sent the jury to the back room and explained to Binger and the other guy about the "right to remain silent."
Then there's the Grosskreutz's phone issue. A warrant was created, but the state never executed that warrant. The prosecution never attempted to recover Grosskreutz's phone and enter it or it's contents into evidence. Since the search warrant was never executed, the defense never had a chance to go through Grosskreutz's phone.
Why did all this happen? Because Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
Grosskreutz was also in possession of a gun which he had no permit for. Being over the age of 18, he was required by law to get a permit for it. Nor was he charged with lying to police officers about the gun. Which is obstruction of justice.
Why? Because once again, Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
I'm hoping for a not guilty verdict on all charges, sometime today.
This is an obvious case of self defense. Especially after the prosecution failed to understand the gun laws in their own state, and dropped the possession charge on Rittenhouse. In fact the prosecution sometimes didn't even understand basic law. As in when they tried to go after Kyle for not talking to the police right away, (after turning himself in) until he met with his attorney. The judge stopped the court, sent the jury to the back room and explained to Binger and the other guy about the "right to remain silent."
Then there's the Grosskreutz's phone issue. A warrant was created, but the state never executed that warrant. The prosecution never attempted to recover Grosskreutz's phone and enter it or it's contents into evidence. Since the search warrant was never executed, the defense never had a chance to go through Grosskreutz's phone.
Why did all this happen? Because Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
Grosskreutz was also in possession of a gun which he had no permit for. Being over the age of 18, he was required by law to get a permit for it. Nor was he charged with lying to police officers about the gun. Which is obstruction of justice.
Why? Because once again, Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
I'm hoping for a not guilty verdict on all charges, sometime today.
#2
R
Rivets
R
Rivets
FYI, no jury yet, get your facts straight. The jury has not even been selected yet, judge is to draw 12 jurors from a pool of 18 this morning. The stupid kid is guilty of more than he’s charged with. To bad there are no laws for being incredibly stupid, as he should be put away until they come up with a vaccine. As for other charges, guilty on all counts, unless you feel sorry for the little snot nosed brat.
#3
PTmowerMech
What case are you watching? I've been watching the Rittenhouse trial all week. From opening statements to closing statements.
Jury is deliberating now. The trial ended yesterday.
PTmowerMech
FYI, no jury yet, get your facts straight. The jury has not even been selected yet, judge is to draw 12 jurors from a pool of 18 this morning. The stupid kid is guilty of more than he’s charged with. To bad there are no laws for being incredibly stupid, as he should be put away until they come up with a vaccine. As for other charges, guilty on all counts, unless you feel sorry for the little snot nosed brat.
What case are you watching? I've been watching the Rittenhouse trial all week. From opening statements to closing statements.
Jury is deliberating now. The trial ended yesterday.
#4
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
In fact, yesterday was a moron move by the prosecutor when he pointed the gun at the jury, with his finger on the trigger. Note: The people on the right aren't the jury. They'll never been shown on TV during the trial.
#5
R
Rivets
R
Rivets
You are enjoying the hype, but making up your own facts to fit your decisions. This is why people like you make up their mind before they know all the facts. The jury is being selected as I type this. The prosecution and defense gave their closing statements yesterday, but the judge didn’t seat a final jury of 12 individuals. Make sure you know all the facts before you make assumptions. You must be watching NewsMax for your info, as they also like to jump to conclusions. Remember what assume translates into.
#6
PTmowerMech
(CNN) November 2, 2021
Kyle Rittenhouse, the armed Illinois teenager who killed two people and wounded another during unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer, went on trial Monday on homicide charges in a case that will test the distinction between self-defense and vigilante killings.
A jury of 20 people was selected that included 11 women and nine men, according to a pool reporter in court. That number will be reduced to 12 when deliberations begin.
PTmowerMech
Fact: The jury selection was completed Nov. 2.You are enjoying the hype, but making up your own facts to fit your decisions. This is why people like you make up their mind before they know all the facts. The jury is being selected as I type this. The prosecution and defense gave their closing statements yesterday, but the judge didn’t seat a final jury of 12 individuals. Make sure you know all the facts before you make assumptions. You must be watching NewsMax for your info, as they also like to jump to conclusions. Remember what assume translates into.
(CNN) November 2, 2021
Kyle Rittenhouse, the armed Illinois teenager who killed two people and wounded another during unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer, went on trial Monday on homicide charges in a case that will test the distinction between self-defense and vigilante killings.
A jury of 20 people was selected that included 11 women and nine men, according to a pool reporter in court. That number will be reduced to 12 when deliberations begin.
The facts and evidence (and prosecutions lies) have already been put through the trial. The trial is over. Finished. Kaput. Just waiting on the juries decision at this point. I watched most of it, live. Video's, statements by witnesses, and just about every other aspect of the trial.
So I'm not sure exactly where you get off saying the judge hasn't seated the jury yet. That was 2 weeks ago.
#7
R
Rivets
R
Rivets
A jury of 20 people were selected two weeks ago, but you only seat 12 jurors to make the final decision. All 20 individuals sat in the courtroom during the last two weeks, hearing all the evidence. One individual was dismissed for making an inappropriate joke to a bailiff and another was dismissed for medical reasons. That left 18 and this morning the judge selected 12 in a random drawing, who will then be making a decision of guilty or not guilty. The remaining 6 still must remain available if anyone else needs to be removed before a final decision is made. Those are the facts, which you were following the trial as closely as you say you were. I think you were selectively following the parts of the trial which support your side of the story. A good juror makes their decision by looking at the entire picture, not just parts of the story. You better review the entire trial before stating your FACTS.
#8
PTmowerMech
What you're saying is completely irrelevant to anything I'm talking about. The jury is now deciding guilt or innocence.
From Nov. 1st.
Jury seated in Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial, setting stage for high-profile case
PTmowerMech
A jury of 20 people were selected two weeks ago, but you only seat 12 jurors to make the final decision. All 20 individuals sat in the courtroom during the last two weeks, hearing all the evidence. One individual was dismissed for making an inappropriate joke to a bailiff and another was dismissed for medical reasons. That left 18 and this morning the judge selected 12 in a random drawing, who will then be making a decision of guilty or not guilty. The remaining 6 still must remain available if anyone else needs to be removed before a final decision is made. Those are the facts, which you were following the trial as closely as you say you were. I think you were selectively following the parts of the trial which support your side of the story. A good juror makes their decision by looking at the entire picture, not just parts of the story. You better review the entire trial before stating your FACTS.
What you're saying is completely irrelevant to anything I'm talking about. The jury is now deciding guilt or innocence.
From Nov. 1st.
Jury seated in Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial, setting stage for high-profile case
#9
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
This is a clear case of self defense. Regardless of why Kyle was there that night, he was well within his legal right to do so. And be armed with that AR. So sayeth the law.
IMO, this was a stupid case for the prosecution to even take to trail. There was no provocation. Everyone that Kyle shot was within 3ft from him, and going after him. If that ain't self defense, I don't know what is.
IMO, this was a stupid case for the prosecution to even take to trail. There was no provocation. Everyone that Kyle shot was within 3ft from him, and going after him. If that ain't self defense, I don't know what is.
#10
4getgto
4getgto
Kids a piece of crap.
Little 17 year old punk should have never been there.
Little 17 year old punk should have never been there.
#11
Scrubcadet10
Scrubcadet10
he could've Baldwin'd them...?In fact, yesterday was a moron move by the prosecutor when he pointed the gun at the jury, with his finger on the trigger. Note: The people on the right aren't the jury. They'll never been shown on TV during the trial.
#12
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
Neither should the three criminals he shot either. Talk about victim blaming. That is like saying a girl that gets raped happened because she shouldn't of been there.Kids a piece of crap.
Little 17 year old punk should have never been there.
#13
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
Looks like 18 counts of assault with a deadly weapon. Bailiff should of taken him to the floor.In fact, yesterday was a moron move by the prosecutor when he pointed the gun at the jury, with his finger on the trigger. Note: The people on the right aren't the jury. They'll never been shown on TV during the trial.
#14
B
bertsmobile1
B
bertsmobile1
The purpose of a trial by jury is to maintain the status quo and allow the rich & powerful to get away with anything & everything with minimal retribution if any at all .
That was the aim way back when the kings & tribal chiefs were the sole arbritrators of the laws ( which most people did not know in any case ) and it continued on when trial by jury ( which was generally a group of wealthy land owners ) replaced trial by the judge alone.
In order to keep understanding of the laws above than of the average man we invented lawyers and the principle of precedence .
All that had happened over the millenia is the original 12 ( if you keep Christian ideals ) is now 12,000,000 and they invent new ones on a daily basis so the system becomes so complicated even the attorneys can no longer understand it .
Trial by jury assumes that you can find a panel of objective thinking people with no prejudices or political biases who are totally ignorant of the event apart from what they are presented with in the court room, and that person has never existed and never will exist.
So in most cases it is just window dressing designed to protect the wealthy and make the rest of us think we are protected by the law .
The case that comes to mind was a young woman who was corned by 4 young men on her way home, she ended up stabbing one of the men with his own knife .
She then ran away as did the rest of them and the would be rapist ? died several hours latter from blood loss
The woman was found guilty of manslaughter & given a 5 year sentence on the grounds that she was an athlete , wearing a short skirt & sneakers while the men were all overwieght wearing tight jeans & heavy boots so she could have easily outrun them & escaped .
The 3 others who failed to render assistance to their friend or even report the matter were found not to have breeched any laws as by reporting the incidence they many have incriminated themselves in the potential sexual assult .
The boys were all from wealthy upper class families & the girl was a first generation refugee .
IT was a closed court so no media were allowed in or allowed to report on the proceedings apart from the basic facts that 4 men had cornered a girl on her way home & one of them died as a result of being stabbed, no names, no dates & no locations , all to protect the reputations of the boys families .
The girls brother worked for me for a time or I would not have known abut it either .
The only difference between then & now is mobile phones with video cameras and face book so the events end up becoming public knowledge before the system can put a lid on it .'
Then the defence uses this to claim a fair & objective trial can not happen because of the supposedly biased information that has become widespread .
That was the aim way back when the kings & tribal chiefs were the sole arbritrators of the laws ( which most people did not know in any case ) and it continued on when trial by jury ( which was generally a group of wealthy land owners ) replaced trial by the judge alone.
In order to keep understanding of the laws above than of the average man we invented lawyers and the principle of precedence .
All that had happened over the millenia is the original 12 ( if you keep Christian ideals ) is now 12,000,000 and they invent new ones on a daily basis so the system becomes so complicated even the attorneys can no longer understand it .
Trial by jury assumes that you can find a panel of objective thinking people with no prejudices or political biases who are totally ignorant of the event apart from what they are presented with in the court room, and that person has never existed and never will exist.
So in most cases it is just window dressing designed to protect the wealthy and make the rest of us think we are protected by the law .
The case that comes to mind was a young woman who was corned by 4 young men on her way home, she ended up stabbing one of the men with his own knife .
She then ran away as did the rest of them and the would be rapist ? died several hours latter from blood loss
The woman was found guilty of manslaughter & given a 5 year sentence on the grounds that she was an athlete , wearing a short skirt & sneakers while the men were all overwieght wearing tight jeans & heavy boots so she could have easily outrun them & escaped .
The 3 others who failed to render assistance to their friend or even report the matter were found not to have breeched any laws as by reporting the incidence they many have incriminated themselves in the potential sexual assult .
The boys were all from wealthy upper class families & the girl was a first generation refugee .
IT was a closed court so no media were allowed in or allowed to report on the proceedings apart from the basic facts that 4 men had cornered a girl on her way home & one of them died as a result of being stabbed, no names, no dates & no locations , all to protect the reputations of the boys families .
The girls brother worked for me for a time or I would not have known abut it either .
The only difference between then & now is mobile phones with video cameras and face book so the events end up becoming public knowledge before the system can put a lid on it .'
Then the defence uses this to claim a fair & objective trial can not happen because of the supposedly biased information that has become widespread .
#15
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
One of the thugs he shot, Rosenbaum had a record of raping a child. And wasn't supposed to be anywhere near anyone UNDER 18. Kyle was 17 when he attacked. So it was a good thing Kyle was there. Otherwise, some child molesting POS would've still been in our society.
Kyle had already put out a dumpster fire. Set by people who didn't own the dumpster. So there's another good reason for Kyle to be there.
And why would you think an American citizen should not be there? Because he was interrupting people rioting?
Kyle had already put out a dumpster fire. Set by people who didn't own the dumpster. So there's another good reason for Kyle to be there.
And why would you think an American citizen should not be there? Because he was interrupting people rioting?
#16
PTmowerMech
Luckily in Kyles case, there was plenty of phones videoing the attacks on him. Which is what is going to prove he's innocent of all charges.
The prosecutor in this case, IMO is one who probably has a lot of innocent people in prison. This case is so open and shut self defense, that only a moron, or a corrupt prosecutor could even bring someone to trail with such obvious evidence.
PTmowerMech
The purpose of a trial by jury is to maintain the status quo and allow the rich & powerful to get away with anything & everything with minimal retribution if any at all .
That was the aim way back when the kings & tribal chiefs were the sole arbritrators of the laws ( which most people did not know in any case ) and it continued on when trial by jury ( which was generally a group of wealthy land owners ) replaced trial by the judge alone.
In order to keep understanding of the laws above than of the average man we invented lawyers and the principle of precedence .
All that had happened over the millenia is the original 12 ( if you keep Christian ideals ) is now 12,000,000 and they invent new ones on a daily basis so the system becomes so complicated even the attorneys can no longer understand it .
Trial by jury assumes that you can find a panel of objective thinking people with no prejudices or political biases who are totally ignorant of the event apart from what they are presented with in the court room, and that person has never existed and never will exist.
So in most cases it is just window dressing designed to protect the wealthy and make the rest of us think we are protected by the law .
The case that comes to mind was a young woman who was corned by 4 young men on her way home, she ended up stabbing one of the men with his own knife .
She then ran away as did the rest of them and the would be rapist ? died several hours latter from blood loss
The woman was found guilty of manslaughter & given a 5 year sentence on the grounds that she was an athlete , wearing a short skirt & sneakers while the men were all overwieght wearing tight jeans & heavy boots so she could have easily outrun them & escaped .
The 3 others who failed to render assistance to their friend or even report the matter were found not to have breeched any laws as by reporting the incidence they many have incriminated themselves in the potential sexual assult .
The boys were all from wealthy upper class families & the girl was a first generation refugee .
IT was a closed court so no media were allowed in or allowed to report on the proceedings apart from the basic facts that 4 men had cornered a girl on her way home & one of them died as a result of being stabbed, no names, no dates & no locations , all to protect the reputations of the boys families .
The girls brother worked for me for a time or I would not have known abut it either .
The only difference between then & now is mobile phones with video cameras and face book so the events end up becoming public knowledge before the system can put a lid on it .'
Then the defence uses this to claim a fair & objective trial can not happen because of the supposedly biased information that has become widespread .
Luckily in Kyles case, there was plenty of phones videoing the attacks on him. Which is what is going to prove he's innocent of all charges.
The prosecutor in this case, IMO is one who probably has a lot of innocent people in prison. This case is so open and shut self defense, that only a moron, or a corrupt prosecutor could even bring someone to trail with such obvious evidence.
#17
PTmowerMech
The look on everyone's face is priceless. "Is this guy nuts?" is probably what they're thinking.
If I was there, I would've ducked and screamed "HE'S GOT A GUN" BA HA HA HA HA HA HA
PTmowerMech
Looks like 18 counts of assault with a deadly weapon. Bailiff should of taken him to the floor.
The look on everyone's face is priceless. "Is this guy nuts?" is probably what they're thinking.
If I was there, I would've ducked and screamed "HE'S GOT A GUN" BA HA HA HA HA HA HA
#18
bkeller500
bkeller500
They wanted to make this a case about racism and that went no where. The defendant only reacted to the threats that came on to him, He has a right to defend himself. He was in danger and used his weapon. He is innocent of all charges.
#19
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
There are a lot of people that believe that he shot three black men. There are also a lot of people believe that he was chasing down the people that he shot instead of the other way around. It is also looking there may of been rules of discovery violations by the prosecutor that could lead to a mistrial, and his possible disbarment.They wanted to make this a case about racism and that went no where. The defendant only reacted to the threats that came on to him, He has a right to defend himself. He was in danger and used his weapon. He is innocent of all charges.
#20
4getgto
17 year old punk that crossed state lines with a gun that was purchased by a relative/neighbor (aka straw purchase).
So yes should've been there..
Went there looking for trouble and found it.
4getgto
Neither should the three criminals he shot either. Talk about victim blaming. That is like saying a girl that gets raped happened because she shouldn't of been there.
17 year old punk that crossed state lines with a gun that was purchased by a relative/neighbor (aka straw purchase).
So yes should've been there..
Went there looking for trouble and found it.
#21
PTmowerMech
The way the prosecutors favored Grosskreutz, they need to be disbarred. No charges for Grosskreutz for possession of a pistol without a permit. And not even an obstruction charge for lying to the cops about the gun.
This kind of prosecutor is seriously how so many people were set free from decades in prison, after a decent attorney found hard evidence that proves him guilty. Many times, evidence that the prosecution never brought up in the trial, or told the defense about.
Just rushing to judgement, trying to get a guilty verdict to pad his resume.
PTmowerMech
There are a lot of people that believe that he shot three black men. There are also a lot of people believe that he was chasing down the people that he shot instead of the other way around. It is also looking there may of been rules of discovery violations by the prosecutor that could lead to a mistrial, and his possible disbarment.
The way the prosecutors favored Grosskreutz, they need to be disbarred. No charges for Grosskreutz for possession of a pistol without a permit. And not even an obstruction charge for lying to the cops about the gun.
This kind of prosecutor is seriously how so many people were set free from decades in prison, after a decent attorney found hard evidence that proves him guilty. Many times, evidence that the prosecution never brought up in the trial, or told the defense about.
Just rushing to judgement, trying to get a guilty verdict to pad his resume.
#22
PTmowerMech
All of that is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. If he went there for trouble, why was he putting out fires and asking people if they needed water or medical?
Seriously where do you get off saying ANY American doesn't have the right to be somewhere in public. He wasn't a rioter. In fact, he enjoyed public service so much, he went through some program with his local police force and with his local fire department. From what I understand he'd also had CPR training and was a life guard.
Clearly he's not a punk. Me thinks you have the wrong definition of "punk."
PTmowerMech
17 year old punk that crossed state lines with a gun that was purchased by a relative/neighbor (aka straw purchase).
So yes should've been there..
Went there looking for trouble and found it.
All of that is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. If he went there for trouble, why was he putting out fires and asking people if they needed water or medical?
Seriously where do you get off saying ANY American doesn't have the right to be somewhere in public. He wasn't a rioter. In fact, he enjoyed public service so much, he went through some program with his local police force and with his local fire department. From what I understand he'd also had CPR training and was a life guard.
Clearly he's not a punk. Me thinks you have the wrong definition of "punk."
#23
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
Both false statements. The gun was purchased in Wisconsin and never closed state lines. Also even though Kyle paid for the rifle it was stored at his friends house in Wisconsin, and since it was being stored at the friends house by the law it was never transferred to Kyle therefore not a straw purchase.17 year old punk that crossed state lines with a gun that was purchased by a relative/neighbor (aka straw purchase).
So yes should've been there..
Went there looking for trouble and found it.
#24
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
The guy that hit Kyle with the skateboard knocking him to the ground and then stomping on his head and was shot at twice by Kyle but missed had been identified and wanted to come forward with a deal and that information was never turned over to the defense in violation of rules of discovery. So the prosecutor hid evidence from the defense.The way the prosecutors favored Grosskreutz, they need to be disbarred. No charges for Grosskreutz for possession of a pistol without a permit. And not even an obstruction charge for lying to the cops about the gun.
This kind of prosecutor is seriously how so many people were set free from decades in prison, after a decent attorney found hard evidence that proves him guilty. Many times, evidence that the prosecution never brought up in the trial, or told the defense about.
Just rushing to judgement, trying to get a guilty verdict to pad his resume.
#25
PTmowerMech
I kid you not, if the video's weren't used as evidence in this case, Kyle would've been life without parole, easy. All because of this crooked prosecutor.
I don't know what I'm sick of more, violent thugs or our crooked justice system that seems to be protecting them now a days.
Richards, Kyles attorney had to call him "drop kick man." Apparently he wasn't allowed to say his name in court.
PTmowerMech
The guy that hit Kyle with the skateboard knocking him to the ground and then stomping on his head and was shot at twice by Kyle but missed had been identified and wanted to come forward with a deal and that information was never turned over to the defense in violation of rules of discovery. So the prosecutor hid evidence from the defense.
I kid you not, if the video's weren't used as evidence in this case, Kyle would've been life without parole, easy. All because of this crooked prosecutor.
I don't know what I'm sick of more, violent thugs or our crooked justice system that seems to be protecting them now a days.
Richards, Kyles attorney had to call him "drop kick man." Apparently he wasn't allowed to say his name in court.
#26
PTmowerMech
Question: So now that you know that all the information you had about Kyle is false, does that change the way you think about him?
Because it seriously sounds like, by not taking up for Kyle, that you're siding with the people he shot. I don't want to guess at that. So I'll ask you to clarify your position.
PTmowerMech
17 year old punk that crossed state lines with a gun that was purchased by a relative/neighbor (aka straw purchase).
So yes should've been there..
Went there looking for trouble and found it.
Question: So now that you know that all the information you had about Kyle is false, does that change the way you think about him?
Because it seriously sounds like, by not taking up for Kyle, that you're siding with the people he shot. I don't want to guess at that. So I'll ask you to clarify your position.
#27
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
I believe if the jury could call these people out in court things would change. Something along the lines of we the jury find the prosecutor guilty of making false statements, committing assault by pointing the rifle at the jury, etc. And we the jury also believe that the prosecutor should be disbarred due to his illegal actions. things would change in a hurry.I kid you not, if the video's weren't used as evidence in this case, Kyle would've been life without parole, easy. All because of this crooked prosecutor.
I don't know what I'm sick of more, violent thugs or our crooked justice system that seems to be protecting them now a days.
Richards, Kyles attorney had to call him "drop kick man." Apparently he wasn't allowed to say his name in court.
#28
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
Have you seen the Billy Bob Thornton series, Goliath.
#29
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
I love the part where the fat prosecutor says "There's no such thing as a left handed gun." Richards was like "Oh yes there are."
I'm not that interested in guns, personally. It was just never important too me to collect, and research and all the things that gun lovers do. But as dumb as I am about guns, even I know there's left handed guns.
It kind of makes you really question Binger raising the gun up at people in the court room.
37:30 is the stupid comment.
I'm not that interested in guns, personally. It was just never important too me to collect, and research and all the things that gun lovers do. But as dumb as I am about guns, even I know there's left handed guns.
It kind of makes you really question Binger raising the gun up at people in the court room.
37:30 is the stupid comment.
#30
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
Gaige Grosskreutz being obliterated by the the defense.
#31
B
bertsmobile1
B
bertsmobile1
FWIW, down here it is being portraied as yet another self appointed right wing white vigilante finding a reason to shoot people.
Apparently there are 5 such cases running in various US courts right now .
I have no opinions on this case .
US citizens have time & time again proven they want the right to go shoot each other .
as such I fail to see why they have all the hoo-har when that happens .
As for the courtroom all expensive theatre with nothing to do with justice , just lawyers justifing massive pay cheques .
In that last video which I did watch the defence lawyer just used an image taken after the person was shot to badger the witness into stating he was pointing his pistol at the defendent before the rifle was fired .
What is needed is the 10 previous frames which have been overlooked
When you get shot your muscles react in all sorts of strange ways and what the witness has just been badgered into stating could be totally wrong
To get an accurate reconstruction you would need to see that footage as a series of singe frames with anotations as to when the shots were fired.
That could very well tell a totally different story.
The dramatic very much delayed reconsructions inside a court room and the actual real time occurences can be quite different when you have things changing in milliseconds then are examining them with several minutes to think about what happened in the blink of an eye .
This is one of the problems with prosecuting the military as well .
In real life a lot of what happens is a reaction to what your brain thinks it is seeing and what it thinks is going to happen which is often a long way from reality.
the classic example is swerving because you thought you saw something you were going to drive into that was either not there , was not moving at the time or was actually coming to a stop ?
We have all been there , although not with a fire arm in our hands.
Apparently there are 5 such cases running in various US courts right now .
I have no opinions on this case .
US citizens have time & time again proven they want the right to go shoot each other .
as such I fail to see why they have all the hoo-har when that happens .
As for the courtroom all expensive theatre with nothing to do with justice , just lawyers justifing massive pay cheques .
In that last video which I did watch the defence lawyer just used an image taken after the person was shot to badger the witness into stating he was pointing his pistol at the defendent before the rifle was fired .
What is needed is the 10 previous frames which have been overlooked
When you get shot your muscles react in all sorts of strange ways and what the witness has just been badgered into stating could be totally wrong
To get an accurate reconstruction you would need to see that footage as a series of singe frames with anotations as to when the shots were fired.
That could very well tell a totally different story.
The dramatic very much delayed reconsructions inside a court room and the actual real time occurences can be quite different when you have things changing in milliseconds then are examining them with several minutes to think about what happened in the blink of an eye .
This is one of the problems with prosecuting the military as well .
In real life a lot of what happens is a reaction to what your brain thinks it is seeing and what it thinks is going to happen which is often a long way from reality.
the classic example is swerving because you thought you saw something you were going to drive into that was either not there , was not moving at the time or was actually coming to a stop ?
We have all been there , although not with a fire arm in our hands.
#32
4getgto
4getgto
Answer. So now that you all your information is wrong and these people he shot were nun's would that have been different ?Question: So now that you know that all the information you had about Kyle is false, does that change the way you think about him?
Because it seriously sounds like, by not taking up for Kyle, that you're siding with the people he shot. I don't want to guess at that. So I'll ask you to clarify your position.
#33
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
It is on video of Lefty pointed his illegally carried handgun at Kyle prior to being shot, and it locked his muscles up and he couldn't release the gun from his hand.FWIW, down here it is being portraied as yet another self appointed right wing white vigilante finding a reason to shoot people.
Apparently there are 5 such cases running in various US courts right now .
I have no opinions on this case .
US citizens have time & time again proven they want the right to go shoot each other .
as such I fail to see why they have all the hoo-har when that happens .
As for the courtroom all expensive theatre with nothing to do with justice , just lawyers justifing massive pay cheques .
In that last video which I did watch the defence lawyer just used an image taken after the person was shot to badger the witness into stating he was pointing his pistol at the defendent before the rifle was fired .
What is needed is the 10 previous frames which have been overlooked
When you get shot your muscles react in all sorts of strange ways and what the witness has just been badgered into stating could be totally wrong
To get an accurate reconstruction you would need to see that footage as a series of singe frames with anotations as to when the shots were fired.
That could very well tell a totally different story.
The dramatic very much delayed reconsructions inside a court room and the actual real time occurences can be quite different when you have things changing in milliseconds then are examining them with several minutes to think about what happened in the blink of an eye .
This is one of the problems with prosecuting the military as well .
In real life a lot of what happens is a reaction to what your brain thinks it is seeing and what it thinks is going to happen which is often a long way from reality.
the classic example is swerving because you thought you saw something you were going to drive into that was either not there , was not moving at the time or was actually coming to a stop ?
We have all been there , although not with a fire arm in our hands.
#34
B
bertsmobile1
B
bertsmobile1
Well the video looks very wrong to me
For a start is has to have been slowed down drastically.
If he was running at Kyle then he would have been 4 paces past Kyle by the time he was being shot
What I see is him running towards Kyle, then Kyle shooting so he does a side step to his right
If you are intending to shoot some one with a hand gun then you would not run up to them if you know they are armed, you would shoot as soon as you were close enough .
The lawyer made a big thing about the man holding the base ball bat ? in his left hand, but that person was to the left of Grosskreutz so he would not have seen the bat, particularly as it was dark and there was a lot happening at the time.
Making Grosskreutz identify that person puts you in the frame of mind that Grosskreutz knew Kyle was under attack and wanted to join in the fray ( that could be true but it is not what the video shows ).
To analyse the video properly as previously mentioned you would have to print it out frame by frame and then plot out our in a plan view.
What I see is Grosskreutz running towards Kyle then he rects to the sounds of the rifle fire ( which can take a second or two ) then thinks better of it and darts off to the side.
If he was running directly at Kyle from the time he has his hands in the air to the time he is shown being shot then he would have been 15' past Kyle when the rifle discharged.
Now I am not taking sides at all but the evidence does not back up what the lawyer is trying to imply.
And of course , any one know a right handed person who would shoot some one on their left ?
If Grosskreutz was always intending to shoot Kyle then he would have approached with Kyle on his right .
It is a really strange type of person who would continue to run towards some one discharging a fire arm.
There is a lot more to this whole event that meets the eye .
For a start is has to have been slowed down drastically.
If he was running at Kyle then he would have been 4 paces past Kyle by the time he was being shot
What I see is him running towards Kyle, then Kyle shooting so he does a side step to his right
If you are intending to shoot some one with a hand gun then you would not run up to them if you know they are armed, you would shoot as soon as you were close enough .
The lawyer made a big thing about the man holding the base ball bat ? in his left hand, but that person was to the left of Grosskreutz so he would not have seen the bat, particularly as it was dark and there was a lot happening at the time.
Making Grosskreutz identify that person puts you in the frame of mind that Grosskreutz knew Kyle was under attack and wanted to join in the fray ( that could be true but it is not what the video shows ).
To analyse the video properly as previously mentioned you would have to print it out frame by frame and then plot out our in a plan view.
What I see is Grosskreutz running towards Kyle then he rects to the sounds of the rifle fire ( which can take a second or two ) then thinks better of it and darts off to the side.
If he was running directly at Kyle from the time he has his hands in the air to the time he is shown being shot then he would have been 15' past Kyle when the rifle discharged.
Now I am not taking sides at all but the evidence does not back up what the lawyer is trying to imply.
And of course , any one know a right handed person who would shoot some one on their left ?
If Grosskreutz was always intending to shoot Kyle then he would have approached with Kyle on his right .
It is a really strange type of person who would continue to run towards some one discharging a fire arm.
There is a lot more to this whole event that meets the eye .
#35
PTmowerMech
Nun? More like a Catholic priest.
Joseph Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old.
My information isn't wrong about any of them.
PTmowerMech
Answer. So now that you all your information is wrong and these people he shot were nun's would that have been different ?
Nun? More like a Catholic priest.
Joseph Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old.
My information isn't wrong about any of them.
#36
PTmowerMech
Grosskreutz testified that he was chasing kyle, stopped when the gun shot, then with his pistol in his hand, lunged at him with gun in his right hand. If the video was altered, then the prosecution would've caught it. And Gorsskreutz would've stated it was wrong.
You know he to have seen the video many many times before testifying. The cell phone footage was released very quickly on social media, IIRC. So if you're saying it's been altered, there would've been another version of it shown on social media first.
PTmowerMech
Well the video looks very wrong to me
For a start is has to have been slowed down drastically.
If he was running at Kyle then he would have been 4 paces past Kyle by the time he was being shot
What I see is him running towards Kyle, then Kyle shooting so he does a side step to his right
If you are intending to shoot some one with a hand gun then you would not run up to them if you know they are armed, you would shoot as soon as you were close enough .
The lawyer made a big thing about the man holding the base ball bat ? in his left hand, but that person was to the left of Grosskreutz so he would not have seen the bat, particularly as it was dark and there was a lot happening at the time.
Making Grosskreutz identify that person puts you in the frame of mind that Grosskreutz knew Kyle was under attack and wanted to join in the fray ( that could be true but it is not what the video shows ).
To analyse the video properly as previously mentioned you would have to print it out frame by frame and then plot out our in a plan view.
What I see is Grosskreutz running towards Kyle then he rects to the sounds of the rifle fire ( which can take a second or two ) then thinks better of it and darts off to the side.
If he was running directly at Kyle from the time he has his hands in the air to the time he is shown being shot then he would have been 15' past Kyle when the rifle discharged.
Now I am not taking sides at all but the evidence does not back up what the lawyer is trying to imply.
And of course , any one know a right handed person who would shoot some one on their left ?
If Grosskreutz was always intending to shoot Kyle then he would have approached with Kyle on his right .
It is a really strange type of person who would continue to run towards some one discharging a fire arm.
There is a lot more to this whole event that meets the eye .
Grosskreutz testified that he was chasing kyle, stopped when the gun shot, then with his pistol in his hand, lunged at him with gun in his right hand. If the video was altered, then the prosecution would've caught it. And Gorsskreutz would've stated it was wrong.
You know he to have seen the video many many times before testifying. The cell phone footage was released very quickly on social media, IIRC. So if you're saying it's been altered, there would've been another version of it shown on social media first.
#37
PTmowerMech
I was wondering why he didn't let go of it, or run away a few steps and turn the gun on Rittenhouse.
PTmowerMech
It is on video of Lefty pointed his illegally carried handgun at Kyle prior to being shot, and it locked his muscles up and he couldn't release the gun from his hand.
I was wondering why he didn't let go of it, or run away a few steps and turn the gun on Rittenhouse.
#38
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
Everything that happened was either livestreamed or released within minutes of the shootings on social media.Grosskreutz testified that he was chasing kyle, stopped when the gun shot, then with his pistol in his hand, lunged at him with gun in his right hand. If the video was altered, then the prosecution would've caught it. And Gorsskreutz would've stated it was wrong.
You know he had have seen the video many many times before testifying. The cell phone footage was released very quickly on social media, IIRC. So if you're saying it's been altered, there would've been another version of it shown on social media first.
#39
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
My understanding was they had to start medical care with the gun in his hand because he couldn't release it.I was wondering why he didn't let go of it, or run away a few steps and turn the gun on Rittenhouse.
#40
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
I just found out that one of the other "nuns", Grosskreutz, hit his grandmother in the face, broke a lamp against her wall, was caught stalking police, and some other run in with his mother. Stealing someone's video game console, smashed his girlfriends window. And a whole slew of things.
#41
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
Read item 16. Judge stated he hasn't read this motion yet, but would make a decision "if necessary". The prosecution withheld the high quality version of the drone footage, so I'd say it is necessary.
#43
S
sbtcabman
S
sbtcabman
The operative word is "punk". I've owned hundreds of guns. Unfortunately most bipeds haven't got the common sense to own one. Then there is the testosterone/invincibility issue when they do. The real issue is that most of the under 40 crowd has lost two critical fundamentals, respect and fear. And there we are back at the beginning. The fine attributes of a punk.
#44
G
gsaunder
G
gsaunder
Every American has the right to self-defense, even if they voted for the "wrong" person/party.
#46
L
longhike
L
longhike
He was bullied as a kid, he dropped out of high school, filled his social media with photos of guns to make him feel like a big man. He shouldn’t have been there and shouldn’t have had a gun.
Too many kids with hurt feelings, and easy access to guns (the bigger problem that nobody wants to discuss). This is an American problem.
oh and yes, if he had been out fixing lawn mowers instead, 2 people would be alive today.
Too many kids with hurt feelings, and easy access to guns (the bigger problem that nobody wants to discuss). This is an American problem.
oh and yes, if he had been out fixing lawn mowers instead, 2 people would be alive today.
#47
J
joea99
J
joea99
What the hell does this have to do with lawnmowers?
Please keep your Political and Social views private.
Please keep your Political and Social views private.
#48
L
longhike
L
longhike
Unfortunately this site allows for these discussions in the Front Porch area of this forum. I agree they should not be allowed but I am guessing that foot traffic and clicks are valuable.
#49
E
enigma-2
E
enigma-2
The case is not as straight forward as some would seem. The kid is claiming seld defense because its all he can claim. He can not deny he shot three unarmed people at close range. And he can't deny he intended the kill them.
Thd jury must decide only one point to find him innocent or guilty. "Did he establish the conditions in which he had to kill thd two other men" (and shoot a third) or was it a turn of events.
The argument comes down to a simple (if simple were only that simple) - If he put himself in a position where he had no choice but to shoot, he's guilty.
Personally I don't believe that an underage kid had any business driving hundreds of miles across state lines, without a driver's license, with a semiautomatic rifle, thats illegal for him to own in Illinois, and injecting himself into a volatile situation with a loaded gun. The other men there who were assisting law enforcement, also felt he was too young and tried to keep a eye on him. Guiding and mentoring him.
I'm guessing that we'll find out, one way or another, later today.
Thd jury must decide only one point to find him innocent or guilty. "Did he establish the conditions in which he had to kill thd two other men" (and shoot a third) or was it a turn of events.
The argument comes down to a simple (if simple were only that simple) - If he put himself in a position where he had no choice but to shoot, he's guilty.
Personally I don't believe that an underage kid had any business driving hundreds of miles across state lines, without a driver's license, with a semiautomatic rifle, thats illegal for him to own in Illinois, and injecting himself into a volatile situation with a loaded gun. The other men there who were assisting law enforcement, also felt he was too young and tried to keep a eye on him. Guiding and mentoring him.
I'm guessing that we'll find out, one way or another, later today.
#50
ILENGINE
ILENGINE
First thing it isn't hundreds of miles, it is 20 miles from his home in IL to Kenosha where he had family and friends. Who said that he didn't have a drivers license and if I remember correctly his mom drove him to Kenosha without a firearm since it was already at his friends house in Wisconsin which legally had never been given to him therefore the original purchaser of the rifle still owned it.. And it would not be illegal for him to use the rifle in either state so also a moot point.The case is not as straight forward as some would seem. The kid is claiming seld defense because its all he can claim. He can not deny he shot three unarmed people at close range. And he can't deny he intended the kill them.
Thd jury must decide only one point to find him innocent or guilty. "Did he establish the conditions in which he had to kill thd two other men" (and shoot a third) or was it a turn of events.
The argument comes down to a simple (if simple were only that simple) - If he put himself in a position where he had no choice but to shoot, he's guilty.
Personally I don't believe that an underage kid had any business driving hundreds of miles across state lines, without a driver's license, with a semiautomatic rifle, thats illegal for him to own in Illinois, and injecting himself into a volatile situation with a loaded gun. The other men there who were assisting law enforcement, also felt he was too young and tried to keep a eye on him. Guiding and mentoring him.
I'm guessing that we'll find out, one way or another, later today.
#51
S
sjfellers
S
sjfellers
Be great to keep politics and personal preferences off this forum. There are plenty of other place to post such items. Thanks for your consideration.But I suspect they won't be out long. The prosecutions case was garbage, so sayeth the defense attorney, Richards. This man is like the real Goliath. (Billy Bob Thornton's character).
This is an obvious case of self defense. Especially after the prosecution failed to understand the gun laws in their own state, and dropped the possession charge on Rittenhouse. In fact the prosecution sometimes didn't even understand basic law. As in when they tried to go after Kyle for not talking to the police right away, (after turning himself in) until he met with his attorney. The judge stopped the court, sent the jury to the back room and explained to Binger and the other guy about the "right to remain silent."
Then there's the Grosskreutz's phone issue. A warrant was created, but the state never executed that warrant. The prosecution never attempted to recover Grosskreutz's phone and enter it or it's contents into evidence. Since the search warrant was never executed, the defense never had a chance to go through Grosskreutz's phone.
Why did all this happen? Because Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
Grosskreutz was also in possession of a gun which he had no permit for. Being over the age of 18, he was required by law to get a permit for it. Nor was he charged with lying to police officers about the gun. Which is obstruction of justice.
Why? Because once again, Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
I'm hoping for a not guilty verdict on all charges, sometime today.
#52
PTmowerMech
What you're talking about is provocation. Some could say he provoked the first one to chase him because he was putting out a dumpster fire, that was started by the rioters. I have a crazy notion that being chased, and something thrown at you, is actually provoking, not being provoked. And knowing Kyle had an AR in his hand, and still chasing him to within feet, screaming threats, is also more provoking. Once he was close enough to Kyle to prove he wasn't going to stop, is only when Kyle fired.
Hundreds of miles? I'm not sure what map your reading, but the distance between Kyles home and Kenosha was like 20 miles. Not to mention, he worked in Kenosha, his dad lives in Kenosha and his friend lives in Kenosha.
Too much of this old info is still circulating around as if it were factual.
And too little information about Kyles attackers are being circulated.
As in Rosenbaums convictions of raping little boys. Or how Grosskreutz was proven to also be violent when he slapped his grandmother over his cell phone. And Huber hitting Kyle with the skate board. And the two others that also got their licks in, without Kyle firing a shot at them.
Should Kyle have been there? Well, there were business owners asking for people to help guard their property, and Kyle volunteered. I see nothing wrong with that. I do, however, see plenty wrong with people rioting over a know criminal, in which none of them actually knew. So if they didn't know Blake, then obviously they were rioting just for the fun of is.
So IMO, being there to help protect innocent peoples property and putting out fires, is way more necessary than being there just to destroy the property of innocent people who had nothing to do with Blake being shot by the cops.
PTmowerMech
The case is not as straight forward as some would seem. The kid is claiming seld defense because its all he can claim. He can not deny he shot three unarmed people at close range. And he can't deny he intended the kill them.
Thd jury must decide only one point to find him innocent or guilty. "Did he establish the conditions in which he had to kill thd two other men" (and shoot a third) or was it a turn of events.
The argument comes down to a simple (if simple were only that simple) - If he put himself in a position where he had no choice but to shoot, he's guilty.
Personally I don't believe that an underage kid had any business driving hundreds of miles across state lines, without a driver's license, with a semiautomatic rifle, thats illegal for him to own in Illinois, and injecting himself into a volatile situation with a loaded gun. The other men there who were assisting law enforcement, also felt he was too young and tried to keep a eye on him. Guiding and mentoring him.
I'm guessing that we'll find out, one way or another, later today.
What you're talking about is provocation. Some could say he provoked the first one to chase him because he was putting out a dumpster fire, that was started by the rioters. I have a crazy notion that being chased, and something thrown at you, is actually provoking, not being provoked. And knowing Kyle had an AR in his hand, and still chasing him to within feet, screaming threats, is also more provoking. Once he was close enough to Kyle to prove he wasn't going to stop, is only when Kyle fired.
Hundreds of miles? I'm not sure what map your reading, but the distance between Kyles home and Kenosha was like 20 miles. Not to mention, he worked in Kenosha, his dad lives in Kenosha and his friend lives in Kenosha.
Too much of this old info is still circulating around as if it were factual.
And too little information about Kyles attackers are being circulated.
As in Rosenbaums convictions of raping little boys. Or how Grosskreutz was proven to also be violent when he slapped his grandmother over his cell phone. And Huber hitting Kyle with the skate board. And the two others that also got their licks in, without Kyle firing a shot at them.
Should Kyle have been there? Well, there were business owners asking for people to help guard their property, and Kyle volunteered. I see nothing wrong with that. I do, however, see plenty wrong with people rioting over a know criminal, in which none of them actually knew. So if they didn't know Blake, then obviously they were rioting just for the fun of is.
So IMO, being there to help protect innocent peoples property and putting out fires, is way more necessary than being there just to destroy the property of innocent people who had nothing to do with Blake being shot by the cops.
#53
PTmowerMech
To me, this isn't a political issue. This is a legal one. I'm not going to bring politics here. But this is the "front porch." And no one is forcing anyone to click on this thread. There's enough information in the thread to know what it's about.
There are a lot of people, even on this forum, who understand the importance of owning and bearing a firearm, for the safety of themselves and their family. This case is important, because they are the Kyle Rittenhouse's of this country. God forbid some violent thug like Grosskreutz wants to burn down or loot their small engine shops. If Kyle is found guilty, when he's clearly innocent, that says something about their legal rights to protect themselves, their families and their small engine shops. Or what ever business they own.
We're all Kyles, whether we put ourselves in harms way or not. And until there's laws that restrict our freedom of movement, our ability to go and try to protect the innocent, we'll always be Kyle RIttenhouse's of this country.
As @bertsmobile1 pointed out, apparently in his country, a woman was being attacked by 3 or 4 guys. She managed to get the weapon away from one of them and kill him with it. In which she was charged with manslaughter for doing so. Do we really want that here?
You know, there's a reason why sooo many people are wrongly convicted. When DNA started becoming popular, there were people who had spent decades in prison, when they were actually innocent. Many times, false evidence was used against them, even when the prosecution knew it was false evidence. Or didn't bring evidence into the trial because he knew it would prove the suspect innocent.
There's a thousand important aspects coming to light with this trial. And none of it boils down to whether Kyle should've been there or not.
PTmowerMech
Be great to keep politics and personal preferences off this forum. There are plenty of other place to post such items. Thanks for your consideration.
To me, this isn't a political issue. This is a legal one. I'm not going to bring politics here. But this is the "front porch." And no one is forcing anyone to click on this thread. There's enough information in the thread to know what it's about.
There are a lot of people, even on this forum, who understand the importance of owning and bearing a firearm, for the safety of themselves and their family. This case is important, because they are the Kyle Rittenhouse's of this country. God forbid some violent thug like Grosskreutz wants to burn down or loot their small engine shops. If Kyle is found guilty, when he's clearly innocent, that says something about their legal rights to protect themselves, their families and their small engine shops. Or what ever business they own.
We're all Kyles, whether we put ourselves in harms way or not. And until there's laws that restrict our freedom of movement, our ability to go and try to protect the innocent, we'll always be Kyle RIttenhouse's of this country.
As @bertsmobile1 pointed out, apparently in his country, a woman was being attacked by 3 or 4 guys. She managed to get the weapon away from one of them and kill him with it. In which she was charged with manslaughter for doing so. Do we really want that here?
You know, there's a reason why sooo many people are wrongly convicted. When DNA started becoming popular, there were people who had spent decades in prison, when they were actually innocent. Many times, false evidence was used against them, even when the prosecution knew it was false evidence. Or didn't bring evidence into the trial because he knew it would prove the suspect innocent.
There's a thousand important aspects coming to light with this trial. And none of it boils down to whether Kyle should've been there or not.
#54
V
vol1954
V
vol1954
And just why is this being discussed on a lawn mower forum? And why is the moderator allowing it to be posted? Not that this is not an important topic, but it has no business on this site.he could've Baldwin'd them...?
#55
PTmowerMech
Some media outlets here are portraying him that way also. And since the prosecution really doesn't have a legit case, the media is now blaming the judge.
Our decent citizens only want the right to have the ability to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our property. Somehow the decent citizens get lumped in with the violent thugs. Fact: The rioting was over a guy who got shot by the cops. Blake already had assaulted the ex wife, who was the one that called the cops to start with. But Blake refused to even stop to discuss anything with the police. He was wanted on a federal warrant and armed with a knife when the police shot him.
The media, some of them, like to portray our police officers as all being trigger happy and just looking for people to shoot. Which is not even true in 99.999999% of the cases.
And the decent gun owners of our country, aren't trigger happy either.
Those 10 frames had been played over and over in court. And it showed Grosskreuts stopping, then lunging forward at Kyle, with gun in hand. And his gun in the direction of Kyle, when Kyle shot. Simple self defense. If Kyle just wanted to shoot Gorsskreutz, he could've done it before he lunged towards him.
The video's from all angles have been played, over and over. And from every angle, at every speed, it boils down to Kyle defending himself from people who were hellbent on attacking him. And it all started with him trying to put out a garbage can fire, started by rioters.
There were many instances where Kyle could've shot others. Even Grosskreutz. Standing just feet in front of him, not coming at him (in that split second), Kyle could've shot him. But Grosskreutz was just standing there. And so Kyle didn't shoot. It wasn't until after he lunged towards Kyle, that Kyle fired. Point is, IMO, Kyle carefully calculated the dangers, and managed to not get overly excited when he wasn't in any danger (in that split second) But once the danger was there, as in Grosskreutz lunging, that's a different story. There was real danger, especially since Grosskreutz was now visibly armed with a glock.
PTmowerMech
FWIW, down here it is being portraied as yet another self appointed right wing white vigilante finding a reason to shoot people.
Apparently there are 5 such cases running in various US courts right now .
I have no opinions on this case .
Some media outlets here are portraying him that way also. And since the prosecution really doesn't have a legit case, the media is now blaming the judge.
US citizens have time & time again proven they want the right to go shoot each other .
Our decent citizens only want the right to have the ability to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our property. Somehow the decent citizens get lumped in with the violent thugs. Fact: The rioting was over a guy who got shot by the cops. Blake already had assaulted the ex wife, who was the one that called the cops to start with. But Blake refused to even stop to discuss anything with the police. He was wanted on a federal warrant and armed with a knife when the police shot him.
The media, some of them, like to portray our police officers as all being trigger happy and just looking for people to shoot. Which is not even true in 99.999999% of the cases.
And the decent gun owners of our country, aren't trigger happy either.
In that last video which I did watch the defence lawyer just used an image taken after the person was shot to badger the witness into stating he was pointing his pistol at the defendent before the rifle was fired .
What is needed is the 10 previous frames which have been overlooked
Those 10 frames had been played over and over in court. And it showed Grosskreuts stopping, then lunging forward at Kyle, with gun in hand. And his gun in the direction of Kyle, when Kyle shot. Simple self defense. If Kyle just wanted to shoot Gorsskreutz, he could've done it before he lunged towards him.
The dramatic very much delayed reconsructions inside a court room and the actual real time occurences can be quite different when you have things changing in milliseconds then are examining them with several minutes to think about what happened in the blink of an eye .
This is one of the problems with prosecuting the military as well .
In real life a lot of what happens is a reaction to what your brain thinks it is seeing and what it thinks is going to happen which is often a long way from reality.
The video's from all angles have been played, over and over. And from every angle, at every speed, it boils down to Kyle defending himself from people who were hellbent on attacking him. And it all started with him trying to put out a garbage can fire, started by rioters.
the classic example is swerving because you thought you saw something you were going to drive into that was either not there , was not moving at the time or was actually coming to a stop ?
We have all been there , although not with a fire arm in our hands.
There were many instances where Kyle could've shot others. Even Grosskreutz. Standing just feet in front of him, not coming at him (in that split second), Kyle could've shot him. But Grosskreutz was just standing there. And so Kyle didn't shoot. It wasn't until after he lunged towards Kyle, that Kyle fired. Point is, IMO, Kyle carefully calculated the dangers, and managed to not get overly excited when he wasn't in any danger (in that split second) But once the danger was there, as in Grosskreutz lunging, that's a different story. There was real danger, especially since Grosskreutz was now visibly armed with a glock.
#56
GEARHEAD3
GEARHEAD3
WTF This is a lawn mower forum for God sake
#57
P
purse
P
purse
I must say for the people who are saying Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there,either should have the other low life scum bags destroying burning property Apparently Rittenhouse’s ,father lives there, he has friends and apparently has a job there. I say put the blame on the Democrat politicians of Wisconsin telling the police to stand down. If the police have been allowed to do there job, this crap would have never happened. This is far from a Peaceful protest, destroying property and thief. It was totally self defense all the way. That state prosecutor doesn’t even know the Wisconsin law. Never point a gun at anyone, even if it’s not loaded. Apparently state prosecutor doesn’t even know that .
#58
reel mower freak
reel mower freak
Keep your race wars off this site. This is no place for this garbage. It’s bad enough I have to read and see all the racist crap going down on a daily basis. I don’t need to read it here.
#60
M
marinusdees
M
marinusdees
A lawnmower forum is not the place for this (mis) information and argument.But I suspect they won't be out long. The prosecutions case was garbage, so sayeth the defense attorney, Richards. This man is like the real Goliath. (Billy Bob Thornton's character).
This is an obvious case of self defense. Especially after the prosecution failed to understand the gun laws in their own state, and dropped the possession charge on Rittenhouse. In fact the prosecution sometimes didn't even understand basic law. As in when they tried to go after Kyle for not talking to the police right away, (after turning himself in) until he met with his attorney. The judge stopped the court, sent the jury to the back room and explained to Binger and the other guy about the "right to remain silent."
Then there's the Grosskreutz's phone issue. A warrant was created, but the state never executed that warrant. The prosecution never attempted to recover Grosskreutz's phone and enter it or it's contents into evidence. Since the search warrant was never executed, the defense never had a chance to go through Grosskreutz's phone.
Why did all this happen? Because Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
Grosskreutz was also in possession of a gun which he had no permit for. Being over the age of 18, he was required by law to get a permit for it. Nor was he charged with lying to police officers about the gun. Which is obstruction of justice.
Why? Because once again, Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
I'm hoping for a not guilty verdict on all charges, sometime today.
#61
PTmowerMech
This is the Front Porch section of this entire forum. All sort of things in this section, besides mower. Why bother clicking on something you don't want to read about?
PTmowerMech
A lawnmower forum is not the place for this (mis) information and argument.
This is the Front Porch section of this entire forum. All sort of things in this section, besides mower. Why bother clicking on something you don't want to read about?
#62
F
Freddyfreeze
F
Freddyfreeze
His Father lives in Kenosha along with other family members. He went 20 miles to Kenosha to help his family protect their property. If the city and police had done there jobs there would not have been an incident. Plus he was trained in first aid and was helping anyone who needed it. Go ride your lawn mower!17 year old punk that crossed state lines with a gun that was purchased by a relative/neighbor (aka straw purchase).
So yes should've been there..
Went there looking for trouble and found it.
#63
Scrubcadet10
Scrubcadet10
I'm watching this thread closely... I'm keeping it open for discussion so long as it remains civil (no name calling or foul language, and no outside politics, religious or race/ethnicity issues are brought up. Or until the higher ups lock it.
You do not have to click on this thread if you don't want to read it.
You do not have to click on this thread if you don't want to read it.
#64
1mk2
Mike
1mk2
Totally agree, thanks for your posting.But I suspect they won't be out long. The prosecutions case was garbage, so sayeth the defense attorney, Richards. This man is like the real Goliath. (Billy Bob Thornton's character).
This is an obvious case of self defense. Especially after the prosecution failed to understand the gun laws in their own state, and dropped the possession charge on Rittenhouse. In fact the prosecution sometimes didn't even understand basic law. As in when they tried to go after Kyle for not talking to the police right away, (after turning himself in) until he met with his attorney. The judge stopped the court, sent the jury to the back room and explained to Binger and the other guy about the "right to remain silent."
Then there's the Grosskreutz's phone issue. A warrant was created, but the state never executed that warrant. The prosecution never attempted to recover Grosskreutz's phone and enter it or it's contents into evidence. Since the search warrant was never executed, the defense never had a chance to go through Grosskreutz's phone.
Why did all this happen? Because Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
Grosskreutz was also in possession of a gun which he had no permit for. Being over the age of 18, he was required by law to get a permit for it. Nor was he charged with lying to police officers about the gun. Which is obstruction of justice.
Why? Because once again, Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
I'm hoping for a not guilty verdict on all charges, sometime today.
Mike
#65
M
mmoffitt
M
mmoffitt
This has happened before site gets hijacked/side tracked by current events.Do NOT want to hear this on this forum!! This is about LAWN MOWER repair not for or against this or that save it for the proper forum! Thank you
Happy thanksgiving to all
Happy thanksgiving to all
#66
L
luckydevil
L
luckydevil
So one of the deceased was charged with several counts of child molestation? Another one had been slapping his grandmother around?
And there are people taking up for these thugs?
You do not have to click on this thread if you don't want to read it.
And there are people taking up for these thugs?
You do not have to click on this thread if you don't want to read it.
#67
4getgto
4getgto
And Rittenhouse knew this before he shot and kill them...So one of the deceased was charged with several counts of child molestation? Another one had been slapping his grandmother around?
And there are people taking up for these thugs?
You do not have to click on this thread if you don't want to read it.
#68
PTmowerMech
Actually he was convicted. I'm not going to post the details. But it was with a 5yr old boy. And as if that wasn't bad enough, It gets worse.
PTmowerMech
So one of the deceased was charged with several counts of child molestation? Another one had been slapping his grandmother around?
And there are people taking up for these thugs?
You do not have to click on this thread if you don't want to read it.
Actually he was convicted. I'm not going to post the details. But it was with a 5yr old boy. And as if that wasn't bad enough, It gets worse.
#69
PTmowerMech
All Rittenhouse knew was that he was being chased, something thrown at him. And then a gun goes off, behind him (in the direction of the POS that was chasing him.
The unknown gunman was only about 25 yrd behind his Rosenbaum. Even if the other guy hadn't fired the gun, Rittenhouse was still well within his right to shoot the child rapist.
PTmowerMech
And Rittenhouse knew this before he shot and kill them...
All Rittenhouse knew was that he was being chased, something thrown at him. And then a gun goes off, behind him (in the direction of the POS that was chasing him.
The unknown gunman was only about 25 yrd behind his Rosenbaum. Even if the other guy hadn't fired the gun, Rittenhouse was still well within his right to shoot the child rapist.
#70
C
CaptFerd
C
CaptFerd
Hope im not stealing the thread but, my snow blower wont start. Only if I scratch my head and shoot ether in the breather. If I dont scratch my head it wont start.
#71
PTmowerMech
PTmowerMech
I don't get it. This is the Front Porch. A place to discuss other things. Why all this about it not being a mower thread?
#72
T
TDexter
T
TDexter
I'm not sure what this has to do with lawnmowers or any other power equipment, but since you put yourself out there. You are obviously a racist, ignorant individual. I would guess also a sad trump supporter, which also would make you a racist, and an uneducated danger to the security of the USA. Rittenhouse went looking for trouble, and now unfortunately two people are dead and another shot. To condone such behavior you yourself should be charged with treason, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Bottom line is you and people like you make me sick!But I suspect they won't be out long. The prosecutions case was garbage, so sayeth the defense attorney, Richards. This man is like the real Goliath. (Billy Bob Thornton's character).
This is an obvious case of self defense. Especially after the prosecution failed to understand the gun laws in their own state, and dropped the possession charge on Rittenhouse. In fact the prosecution sometimes didn't even understand basic law. As in when they tried to go after Kyle for not talking to the police right away, (after turning himself in) until he met with his attorney. The judge stopped the court, sent the jury to the back room and explained to Binger and the other guy about the "right to remain silent."
Then there's the Grosskreutz's phone issue. A warrant was created, but the state never executed that warrant. The prosecution never attempted to recover Grosskreutz's phone and enter it or it's contents into evidence. Since the search warrant was never executed, the defense never had a chance to go through Grosskreutz's phone.
Why did all this happen? Because Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
Grosskreutz was also in possession of a gun which he had no permit for. Being over the age of 18, he was required by law to get a permit for it. Nor was he charged with lying to police officers about the gun. Which is obstruction of justice.
Why? Because once again, Grosskreutz was the prosecutions star witness.
I'm hoping for a not guilty verdict on all charges, sometime today.
#73
B
bertsmobile1
Every person has the rights to protest without the fear of being shot.
Shooing protesters is what they do in totaliterian countries not supposedly in a free country.
B
bertsmobile1
Shooting an unarmed person is not self defence it is a criminal offence, despite what type of person the victum was.Every American has the right to self-defense, even if they voted for the "wrong" person/party.
Every person has the rights to protest without the fear of being shot.
Shooing protesters is what they do in totaliterian countries not supposedly in a free country.
#74
B
bertsmobile1
Minimum requirement for owning a fire arm should be safety training
After that a mental profile would be good
Better still would be no guns at all
IF all of the milita had nothing but battons then 2 people would still be alive.
The UK police have no problems keeping the peace with nothing more than a tazer & batton.
B
bertsmobile1
Exactly rightHe was bullied as a kid, he dropped out of high school, filled his social media with photos of guns to make him feel like a big man. He shouldn’t have been there and shouldn’t have had a gun.
Too many kids with hurt feelings, and easy access to guns (the bigger problem that nobody wants to discuss). This is an American problem.
oh and yes, if he had been out fixing lawn mowers instead, 2 people would be alive today.
Minimum requirement for owning a fire arm should be safety training
After that a mental profile would be good
Better still would be no guns at all
IF all of the milita had nothing but battons then 2 people would still be alive.
The UK police have no problems keeping the peace with nothing more than a tazer & batton.
#75
B
bertsmobile1
have a strong discussion / arguement without resorting to name calling & abuse is a sign of a civilized free society
B
bertsmobile1
Freedom of expression is a vital part of a free societyI'm not sure what this has to do with lawnmowers or any other power equipment, but since you put yourself out there. You are obviously a racist, ignorant individual. I would guess also a sad trump supporter, which also would make you a racist, and an uneducated danger to the security of the USA. Rittenhouse went looking for trouble, and now unfortunately two people are dead and another shot. To condone such behavior you yourself should be charged with treason, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Bottom line is you and people like you make me sick!
have a strong discussion / arguement without resorting to name calling & abuse is a sign of a civilized free society
#76
PTmowerMech
We can take this to the private PM's, so people don't have to bother reading it.
I would also ask that the mods overlook his comments this one time. Maybe he just doesn't know the rules about politics around here. And that it's not allowed.
And for good reason.
PTmowerMech
I'm not sure what this has to do with lawnmowers or any other power equipment, but since you put yourself out there. You are obviously a racist, ignorant individual. I would guess also a sad trump supporter, which also would make you a racist, and an uneducated danger to the security of the USA. Rittenhouse went looking for trouble, and now unfortunately two people are dead and another shot. To condone such behavior you yourself should be charged with treason, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Bottom line is you and people like you make me sick!
We can take this to the private PM's, so people don't have to bother reading it.
I would also ask that the mods overlook his comments this one time. Maybe he just doesn't know the rules about politics around here. And that it's not allowed.
And for good reason.
#77
E
enigma-2
E
enigma-2
I've found that if'en you scratch your nuts, cuss at it and kick it in the tire, they'll usually show you a pop or two.Hope im not stealing the thread but, my snow blower wont start. Only if I scratch my head and shoot ether in the breather. If I dont scratch my head it wont start.
#78
W
Wyomingjy
W
Wyomingjy
We don't come to this site for political commentary!!!!! We come to give and seek technical advice. Trust the Judicial process.
#79
PTmowerMech
My dad gave me "safety training" when I was like 6 years old. "Dont' point the gun at anyone. Makes sure it's unloaded or loaded, what ever the case may be. How to put it on safety. And never, under any circumstances, move the gun by the front door, unless someone's trying to break in the house."
That was it. And never shot anyone.
In the 60's a Ford pick up owners manual would tell you how to adjust the valves. Todays owners manual tells you not to drink the battery fluid. Are people really getting that stupid? Then I remember the "tide pod" thing. IDK Bert. Maybe your right.
PTmowerMech
Exactly right
Minimum requirement for owning a fire arm should be safety training
After that a mental profile would be good
Better still would be no guns at all
IF all of the milita had nothing but battons then 2 people would still be alive.
The UK police have no problems keeping the peace with nothing more than a tazer & batton.
My dad gave me "safety training" when I was like 6 years old. "Dont' point the gun at anyone. Makes sure it's unloaded or loaded, what ever the case may be. How to put it on safety. And never, under any circumstances, move the gun by the front door, unless someone's trying to break in the house."
That was it. And never shot anyone.
In the 60's a Ford pick up owners manual would tell you how to adjust the valves. Todays owners manual tells you not to drink the battery fluid. Are people really getting that stupid? Then I remember the "tide pod" thing. IDK Bert. Maybe your right.
#80
Scrubcadet10
Scrubcadet10
Well i see my request to keep it civil was overlooked. Locked and will not be reopened.