Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

These people are weird, but we like to find out what weird people are doing and thinking. It's a hobby.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3908
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2826

Post by Dave from down under »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:43 pm
Gregg wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:30 pm If his ass had been in another state, where he lived, playing Call of Duty in the living room, two people wouldn't have died.
If Rosenbaum hadn't attacked him, nobody would have died either. Hell, if not for the accident that Rosenbaum got discharged and dumped on the street that night, no one would have died, since he was the only one crazy enough to attack someone carrying an AR-15.

In general, you don't blame the innocent victim of a criminal attack for being in the place where a criminal can attack him. You blame the attacker.
How can you be sure that Kyle wouldn't have decided someone else was in need of killing?

He decided that Rosenbaum needed killing - when he pulled the trigger 4 times!

Not just once to shatter Rosenbaums hip to cripple him..
Not just twice to cripple Rosenbaum and smash his hand as he fell..
but again
and again
to make sure that Rosenbaum was dead.

DEAD.

Make up any excuses you want for Kyle - the reality is that 2 people are dead and one maimed and he and he alone is the reason.
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 2999
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2827

Post by MN-Skeptic »

I had never realized all the crazies out there until I started reading articles and posts about Obama's eligibility to be President. I was astounded at the theories and conspiracies which existed online and the intractability of people to recognize the truth. But then I realized:

People believe what they want to believe.

Once they made up their mind, that was it.

Which brings out another truth.

I used to have a boyfriend who would say "I think I'll go pound my head against the wall." I'd then ask him "Why on earth would you want to pound your head against the wall." "Well," he would reply, "It feels so good when I stop."

And that's why you stop arguing with someone who refuses to recognize the truth.

And that, dear fellow Fogbowers, is why I ignore andersweinstein.
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2828

Post by neeneko »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:16 pm There was a lot of evidence Rittenhouse was attacked, he did not provoke the attack through illegal action,
This is one of the key pieces, and a bit of a tautology. His actions where legal therefor his legal defense works. His actions included provoking a fight, which people carrying guns are known to do since in their minds the other person should back down because they are armed. People eventually called his bluff. It is legal for the same reason stand your ground is so popular, american masculinity demands it. But simply writing it off as 'everything is fine and justice was served because that is how the law works' isn't enough here.

And returning to the later shootings, civilians tried to disarm an active shooter, and he shot them. They feared for their lives, but the court gave preference to the armed assailant's fear for HIS life over theirs. We see this play out over and over where armed people get away with attacking others because apparently having a gun in your hand makes you scared of everything and lawmakers sympathize.
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2829

Post by neeneko »

Dave from down under wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:55 pm How can you be sure that Kyle wouldn't have decided someone else was in need of killing?

He decided that Rosenbaum needed killing - when he pulled the trigger 4 times!
And when others tried to stop him from killing again, he shot them.

If Rosenbaum had not attacked him, someone else would have eventually, he was simply the one that responded to Kittenhouse's taunts first. You can always find SOMEONE to provoke eventually when you feel both anxious and invulnerable.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3908
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2830

Post by Dave from down under »

neeneko wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:09 am We see this play out over and over where armed people get away with attacking others because apparently having a gun in your hand makes you scared of everything and lawmakers sympathize.
It’s not safe to deny a gun nut anything.. they are likely to feel threatened and when they are they tend to shoot people.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2831

Post by andersweinstein »

neeneko wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:09 am
andersweinstein wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:16 pm There was a lot of evidence Rittenhouse was attacked, he did not provoke the attack through illegal action,
This is one of the key pieces, and a bit of a tautology. His actions where legal therefor his legal defense works. His actions included provoking a fight, which people carrying guns are known to do since in their minds the other person should back down because they are armed. People eventually called his bluff. It is legal for the same reason stand your ground is so popular, american masculinity demands it. But simply writing it off as 'everything is fine and justice was served because that is how the law works' isn't enough here.
I don't think the state presented any good evidence he did anything to provoke a fight. A reasonable jury could conclude he did nothing to provoke the attack but was jumped from behind a car as his testimony said. Everything on video is consistent wth his testimony that he was headed down Sheridan road with a fire extinguisher to put out a fire in a vehicle's interior, Rosenbaum ran ahead to a position behind a car, and jumped him. And it was Rosenbaum who had been seen trying to start a fight and who testimony said had made threats earlier.

This is one of the beliefs that bug me about the case: idea that he did something to provoke the attack him is very poorly supported by evidence. Mostly it is people like raison de arizona saying "well, he must have done something". To me that recalls "Well that nigrah must have done something or else those good white folk wouldn't have attacked him". It's a way of believing what you want to believe even in the absence of evidence because of prejudice or because you consider some people to be your tribe.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2832

Post by andersweinstein »

neeneko wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:12 am
Dave from down under wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:55 pm How can you be sure that Kyle wouldn't have decided someone else was in need of killing?

He decided that Rosenbaum needed killing - when he pulled the trigger 4 times!
And when others tried to stop him from killing again, he shot them.

If Rosenbaum had not attacked him, someone else would have eventually, he was simply the one that responded to Kittenhouse's taunts first. You can always find SOMEONE to provoke eventually when you feel both anxious and invulnerable.
No evidence was ever presented that Rittenhouse taunted anyone. There was testimony that a woman yelled "Fuck You" at him and he responded "I love you too m'aam" and was advised it was better not to respond at all -- perhaps you could call that taunting, but it seems to me like letting aggression roll off him without rising to the bait and in any case was reactive.

I think your belief that Rittenhouse taunted or provoked must come from your private imagining of what happened. But the jury had to go on evidence, not your imaginings.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3908
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2833

Post by Dave from down under »

You have been very free with your imagined motivations and excuses.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2834

Post by andersweinstein »

MN-Skeptic wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 12:53 am I had never realized all the crazies out there until I started reading articles and posts about Obama's eligibility to be President. I was astounded at the theories and conspiracies which existed online and the intractability of people to recognize the truth. But then I realized:

People believe what they want to believe.

Once they made up their mind, that was it.
Of course this goes both ways. To me, the Rittenhouse-haters made up their mind in advance based on prejudice, essentially assimilating him to a stereotype of right-wing extremist "looking for trouble". Then they interpret all evidence to conform to this preconception, and refuse to allow their beliefs to be falsified. That's what's interesting.

My idea is that very often, when you look into the facts, you discover that reality does not always conform to glib and facile stereotypes. Cases like this often turn out to be quirky, contingent, and just plain weirder than you imagine. This seems to be one of them. I think Rittenhouse turned out to be politically naive with no extremist beliefs, no ties to any militia (he's said he didn't even know what a militia was), tagging along with a chain of acquaintances linked to the car lot owner, and was basically just a well-intentioned goofball with his fantasy of being a medic giving first aid. Foolish, stupid, risky -- but not someone who ever wanted to shoot anyone. And then he wound up attacked by someone who was not even a protestor but a random disturbed guy dumped on the street! So almost everything about that narrative seems unsupported by the actual evidence.

But all I can do is expound the evidence that led me to that view and try to correct misconceptions.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3908
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2835

Post by Dave from down under »

Very simple

He fantasised about killing people

Then he killed 2 and wounded another

Everything else is excuses for his actions
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3829
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2836

Post by RVInit »

Dave from down under wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:16 pm Kyle equipped himself to kill, then he went and killed.

He got away with it because doing so was acceptable to the jury and the lawmakers.

Please do keep pointing out that guns are the reason for people being maimed/killed un-necessarily.

ps. Kyle would have been facing 14 years in jail here had he played vigilante, even before he killed 2 and maimed 1.

But let's play with your view that lethal force is justifiable when-ever you fear for your safety..
Kyle has shown his willingness to use a firearm to kill.
if you see Kyle on the street, he may be concealed carrying, you thus have every valid reason to fear for your safety from Kyle,
Just as well you have a firearm for self-defense.. best to put at least 4 bullets into him to be sure..
before he can shoot you.
:yeahthat:

I watched that particular trial very closely, every word of testimony and saw every exhibit. Kyle got his "not guilty" verdict because of who was on the jury. That is always true. I had no opinion on Kyle's case prior to watching the trial. Had I sat on the jury he would have gotten a hung jury at best. It's true that the jury makes all the difference. If, like Kyle, you want to walk around with a gun, even though you are a scaredy cat and very likely the least little thing is going to make you scared so that you end up using the tool you have on hand to "protect yourself" - do it where Kyle did it. Or do it in one of the many other locales where right wing nut jobs abound. If he had done these deeds in a locale populated by more moderately minded people, who are not watching right wing media that keep them scared for your life 24/7 and believing that behind every sideways glance is someone trying to kill them- those kind of people in no way believe Kyle's behavior was reasonable and he would be sitting in prison right now where, IMO, he belongs.

Also fuck yeah. If I encounter Kyle Rittenhouse, knowing what I know about his unreasonable and cavalier attitude about having killed people who would have posed no threat to him had they not been "the good guy trying to stop the bad guy that just shot someone" - I think it's fully reasonable to be scared for my life in his presence. In that case he'd be lucky that I am not one of those people who is so scared of my shadow that I need to pack heat to do my runs to the grocery store and other shopping. Otherwise, yeah, I might be scared enough for my life to end his before he can end mine Based on his past behavior.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2837

Post by andersweinstein »

Dave from down under wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:55 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:43 pm
Gregg wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:30 pm If his ass had been in another state, where he lived, playing Call of Duty in the living room, two people wouldn't have died.
If Rosenbaum hadn't attacked him, nobody would have died either. Hell, if not for the accident that Rosenbaum got discharged and dumped on the street that night, no one would have died, since he was the only one crazy enough to attack someone carrying an AR-15.

In general, you don't blame the innocent victim of a criminal attack for being in the place where a criminal can attack him. You blame the attacker.
How can you be sure that Kyle wouldn't have decided someone else was in need of killing?
The reason I believe that is because he only shot people who attacked him, and only at the last minute and was fleeing the attacks and only shot when he couldn't get away. This is manifest on video. He could have shot many other people if he were an active shooter who just wanted to kill people. His self-defense case could depend on what happened before the video, certainly. But prima facie, video shows him to have been a defensive shooter who was trying to flee rather than shoot people. But his assailants brought the fight to him and did not let him get away.

The other thing is that before he was attacked, he seems never to have pointed his gun at anyone, never to have initiated any confrontation, never to have behaved aggressively but rather cheerfully walked away from or deflected verbal aggression directed at him. Nothing in his behavior on video or from testimony suggests he behaved in an aggressive way. But it does confirm that he was interested in acting as a medic giving first aid to injured protestors, and announced himself "Friendly, Friendly, Friendly" to try to indicate he was not there as an enemy. The video evidence and testimony by others is consistent with his account.

And, for that matter, he was photographed struggling to clean graffitti off a high school -- what kind of killer normally does that? He comes across as a misguided Boy Scout thinking he was helping his adopted community.

On the other side, Rosenbaum is on video trying to start a fight with the armed men, cursing, baiting them with "shoot me, n*****r". Two people testified that he threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he got him alone. Another person testified that he threatened to cut their hearts out. Another person also testified that he was "false-stepping" and baiting them with "shoot me, n*****r". Other testimony was that Rosenbaum was hyper-aggressive all night and even the protest group kept their distance from him. One ex-marine said he would have been afraid of Rosenbaum if he were alone with him. He's seen holding a chain as a weapon and joining in setting multiple fires.

It's kind of a no-brainer that on this evidence, it is more probable Rosenbaum was the aggressor in an unprovoked attack. Everything in the evidence speaks for that, almost nothing against it. It's only side-taking and prejudice that blinds people to this, I think.

Anyway, that's what convinces me. Some of it is interpretation, of course -- I "read" Rittenhouse this way on the totality of evidence, as just a goofball who fantasized about being a medic and recognized as a helper. I don't doubt he got something out of carrying a gun. But plenty of people carry guns who are not looking to shoot anyone, including that night in Kenosha.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3908
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2838

Post by Dave from down under »

andersweinstein wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:06 am as just a goofball who fantasized about being a medic and recognized as a helper..
A goofball with a gun who fantasised about killing people goes on to kill people and helped no-one.

I know that some killers have fans.

Even such pathetic individuals, such as Kyle, have his.
User avatar
roadscholar
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Renaissance Mechanic
Contact:

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2839

Post by roadscholar »

raison de arizona wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:09 pm Rittenhouse is on tape a week before the shootings fantasizing about using his AR to shoot looters. He was looking for trouble.
Yep. And picking a fight so that you can kill someone and then claim self-defense is a well-known ploy, and exactly what happened here. Kyle should be in prison for life right now.

Of course, Anders could cheer him up with visits and fan letters, so there’s that.
The bitterest truth is more wholesome than the sweetest lie.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2840

Post by Maybenaut »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:27 pm
Maybenaut wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:10 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:25 pm
I think everyone, even people who disagree with me, ought to acknowledge at least that he had a strong self-defense claim under the law.
I’m willing to acknowledge that *the jury* thought his self-defense claim was, at a minimum, reasonably plausible. I wouldn’t speculate beyond that - I wouldn’t have any way of knowing whether they thought it was “strong,” for example.
I simply meant a self-defense case with a good chance of winning, that is, getting him acquitted by the jury. I don't mean the jury assessed its strength.

From my perspective as a non-lawyer, the prosecution had very little evidence inconsistent with his self-defense claims, and some of their witnesses' testimony even strengthened his case. This is admittedly a more subjective assessment.
Except for the dead guys.

You never know what a jury is going to find credible. But just because even if the jury found the self defense claim credible, it doesn’t follow that everyone else will. That’s why, try as you might, you’re not ever going convince the people you’re arguing with here that you are right and they are wrong. You obviously find the claim credible, but not everyone does. People are free to believe that the jury got it wrong.

I personally don’t buy the self defense claim (and I’m a criminal defense lawyer with many years of experience, so don’t waste your time or mine trying to explain it to me). But the jury may have bought it.

Notice I didn’t say “did.” Jury nullification is rare, but it’s not unheard of. Who was that guy from Malhuer? The one caught in town driving a government truck? The jury acquitted him of misappropriation of government property. He was clearly guilty - not his truck, didn’t have the consent of the government to drive it, caught with it 20 miles from where the government left it parked. But he was acquitted of that and he didn’t even have a defense to the crime that the government had to disprove. The only rational explanation for that verdict was jury nullification.

Just like Malhuer, the Rittenhouse trial was politically charged, and because of that I think the potential for nullification was greater. I’m not convinced (and you could never convince me, so don’t bother trying) that the Rittenhouse verdict was not the product of nullification. Assuming the jury was properly instructed (and we’ll never know because the State cannot appeal an acquittal), there are three possible explanations for the verdict: (1) they thought the government failed to prove an element of each offense; (2) they found the self defense claim credible; or (3) they nullified. But I have no way of knowing.

My point is, juries get things wrong with monotonous regularity. The 3,000 some-odd people who have been exonerated since the late 1980s when the University of Michigan started keeping track is proof of that. And every single one of those people was convicted on the basis of evidence that the jury found credible. But just because a jury made a credibility determination about a particular fact doesn’t make that fact true. It just provides a measure of legal finality.

So the most I’m willing to say is that he was acquitted. But the fact of his acquittal is meaningless to me as it relates to whether I think he’s guilty. I watched the trial. I think the State proved its case. I don’t think the self-defense claim was credible, and I think the jury got it wrong.

You will never convince me otherwise.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2841

Post by andersweinstein »

Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:13 am
So the most I’m willing to say is that he was acquitted. But the fact of his acquittal is meaningless to me as it relates to whether I think he’s guilty. I watched the trial. I think the State proved its case. I don’t think the self-defense claim was credible, and I think the jury got it wrong.
Could you say where you think the self-defense case failed (which element was disproven and by what)? I certainly don't expect to convince you otherwise, but I am very interested to understand why you as an expert attorney came to that conclusion.

[And, again, yes of course anyone is entitled to the opinion that the jury got it wrong, I would never object to that truism.]
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2842

Post by andersweinstein »

Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:13 am
andersweinstein wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:27 pm
From my perspective as a non-lawyer, the prosecution had very little evidence inconsistent with his self-defense claims, and some of their witnesses' testimony even strengthened his case. This is admittedly a more subjective assessment.
Except for the dead guys.
I would have thought that dead guys do not constitute evidence inconsistent with self-defense claims.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2843

Post by Maybenaut »

andersweinstein wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:44 am
Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:13 am
So the most I’m willing to say is that he was acquitted. But the fact of his acquittal is meaningless to me as it relates to whether I think he’s guilty. I watched the trial. I think the State proved its case. I don’t think the self-defense claim was credible, and I think the jury got it wrong.
Could you say where you think the self-defense case failed (which element was disproven and by what)? I certainly don't expect to convince you otherwise, but I am very interested to understand why you as an expert attorney came to that conclusion.

[And, again, yes of course anyone is entitled to the opinion that the jury got it wrong, I would never object to that truism.]
I think the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not a credible witness. For me, his lack of credibility was the nail in the coffin of his self-defense claim.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2844

Post by Maybenaut »

andersweinstein wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:50 am
Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:13 am
andersweinstein wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:27 pm
From my perspective as a non-lawyer, the prosecution had very little evidence inconsistent with his self-defense claims, and some of their witnesses' testimony even strengthened his case. This is admittedly a more subjective assessment.
Except for the dead guys.
I would have thought that dead guys do not constitute evidence inconsistent with self-defense claims.
Jeez. It was a joke. From above. A Few Good Men.

But now that you mention it, the fact that he killed them as opposed to using some lesser amount of force is certainly relevant to the question, and depending on the circumstances, may well be inconsistent with self-defense.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2845

Post by andersweinstein »

Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:33 am
andersweinstein wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:50 am
Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:13 am
Except for the dead guys.
I would have thought that dead guys do not constitute evidence inconsistent with self-defense claims.
Jeez. It was a joke. From above. A Few Good Men.
As my own response was also meant to be just a bit dryly facetious. But people keep throwing this particular snark at me as if it was so telling and I don't see it as so clever.
Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:13 am But now that you mention it, the fact that he killed them as opposed to using some lesser amount of force is certainly relevant to the question, and depending on the circumstances, may well be inconsistent with self-defense.
OK, but not the mere fact that he shot people resulting in dead bodies (equally consistent with both murder and justifiable self-defense). That fact combined together with other facts to make an argument the force was excessive under the circumstances.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2846

Post by andersweinstein »

Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:28 am I think the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not a credible witness. For me, his lack of credibility was the nail in the coffin of his self-defense claim.
I remain deeply interested in understanding your assessment since yours is an opinion I respect so highly. Can you say what it was in your view that proved that? You think they caught him in a lie with some other evidence? On what?
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3829
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2847

Post by RVInit »

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Aside from the litany of lies he told?
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2848

Post by Maybenaut »

andersweinstein wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:50 am
Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:28 am I think the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not a credible witness. For me, his lack of credibility was the nail in the coffin of his self-defense claim.
I remain deeply interested in understanding your assessment since yours is an opinion I respect so highly. Can you say what it was in your view that proved that? You think they caught him in a lie with some other evidence? On what?
Nothing specific. And I am no more interested in convincing you than I am in having you try to convince me.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2849

Post by andersweinstein »

Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 4:14 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:50 am
Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:28 am I think the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not a credible witness. For me, his lack of credibility was the nail in the coffin of his self-defense claim.
I remain deeply interested in understanding your assessment since yours is an opinion I respect so highly. Can you say what it was in your view that proved that? You think they caught him in a lie with some other evidence? On what?
Nothing specific. And I am no more interested in convincing you than I am in having you try to convince me.
It's not about convincing. I am honestly interested to understand in what would lead an intelligent viewer to that conclusion. I can see people believing he probably lied, sure. But proof beyond reasonable doubt is very strong! Nothing specific? Just vibes? No major point on which you can say they presented evidence showing he lied? I mean, I know he admitted lying that night about being an EMT, but resume-padding to get people to accept him as a medic hardly seems enough to impugn all his credibility.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2850

Post by bob »

Maybenaut wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:13 amNotice I didn’t say “did.” Jury nullification is rare, but it’s not unheard of.
I've entertained that thought as well; although nullification is rare, this case did present a mix of circumstances that could have increased the possibility of it happening.
Image ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Other weirdos”