Fogbow

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 12:18 pm Wow, thanks for the inside scoop there Anders. Rittenhouse is, well, pretty bad. News at eleven. Would love to say I’m surprised he treated his family and friends like that, but…

Next up he will claim that their verbal “attacks” put him in fear for his life and that is why he was “forced” to kill them in self defence….

Probably.. at some time in the future… and there will be those that will say he was justified…

[snark]
Well, that is just impossible! Nobody shows courtesy and kindness towards a stranger. That's just lunacy in this day and age. Clearly that man has a death wish, and no concern for the safety of his family.
[/snark]

He is just Un-American!!!

A true Patriot shoots first and last!

The security of the state relies on a unregulated militia!

<Also snark by me.. but God’s truth if you listen to some >

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 1:31 am IMG_6540.png

In the immortal words of Ice Cube:

Today, I didn't even have to use my AK
I gotta say it was a good day, shit!

Possibly of interest: Then Rittenhouse family advisor David Hancock tweeted recollections about prepping KR for testimony. [Wrapped in a spoiler simply because of its length.]
Source: https://x.com/DaveHan06/status/1730015247212364234

His sneeze cry act wasn’t very good imo.

Training him not to say that he went looking to kill people must have been exhausting.

We had a discussion awhile back about why I didn’t find Rittenhouse to be a credible witness. I said I thought his testimony was coached. Looks like I was right.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:15 pm We had a discussion awhile back about why I didn’t find Rittenhouse to be a credible witness. I said I thought his testimony was coached. Looks like I was right.

Anders would disagree with you. Those tears were impromptu. Totally.

neonzx wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:40 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:15 pm We had a discussion awhile back about why I didn’t find Rittenhouse to be a credible witness. I said I thought his testimony was coached. Looks like I was right.

Anders would disagree with you. Those tears were impromptu. Totally.

Indeed. I am amazed that anyone still questions the innocence of that delicate cherub.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:15 pm We had a discussion awhile back about why I didn’t find Rittenhouse to be a credible witness. I said I thought his testimony was coached. Looks like I was right.

Is this *surprising*? I've always assumed his testimony had a stiff and artificial quality because he must have been prepped within an inch of his life. And I've always assumed the lawyers helped spin to present him in the most favorable light, when in reality he was not just a sweet and innocent choirboy. Isn't this what you would expect his lawyers to do? Do you think the level of coaching sketched goes beyond ethical conduct for a defense attorney?

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:15 pm We had a discussion awhile back about why I didn’t find Rittenhouse to be a credible witness. I said I thought his testimony was coached. Looks like I was right.

In spite of the obvious coaching, I thought (and still think) that his account of the attacks and his motives for shooting was consistent with the testimony of other witnesses and video evidence, and that the prosecution presented virtually no evidence inconsistent with it (indeed several prosecution witnesses buttressed KR's self-defense case). Since he is presumed innocent, I thought the verdict was correct, because the prosecution didn't give me conclusive reason to reject any part of his claim to have acted in reasonable self-defense.

In your discussion there was only one element of this defense you explicitly said you thought the state disproved beyond a reasonable doubt: that it was *reasonable* to believe he faced a deadly force threat (death or serious bodily harm). Of course this is the whole ballgame. To me it's the *only* difficult legal issue in the case. And ... I just think it's mostly a judgment call on which reasonable people can differ. I see evidence in support of it:

-On Rosenbaum, another witness confirmed his testimony that JR threated to kill them if he got anyone alone, there was other testimony and video showing Rosenbaum to have behaved aggressively and erratically (making him fearsome), made other threats and tried to start fights, and prosecution witness and video evidence support Rosenbaum going for his rifle, meaning the agressive psycho was in the process of arming himself while simultaneously rendering KR defenseless. Maybe Rosenbaum would only have taken the rifle, maybe he would only have beaten KR up, but ... Kyle can't know for certain what the aggressive psycho was going to do. Was he obligated to just let the aggressive psycho who had threatened him take his gun?

-Jump-kick man was a big guy in work boots kicking straight down at his head while he was helpless on his back on the pavement.

-Huber bashed him twice with a skateboard and went for his gun. Skateboard is like a baseball bat with metal parts attached (the trucks: skaters have a concept of "truck fucking" someone by swinging the board).

-Grosskreutz advanced on him with a pistol drawn.

So I don't think it is at all outrageous to hold that someone can reasonably fear death or serious bodily harm from those attacks. Perhaps more likely the serious bodily harm part.

On motive, it seems very hard to me to say the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did not believe he faced threats of death or serious bodily harm or that he did not shoot with the motive of eliminating those threats. I would believe this even without his testimony. Someone who actually *wanted* to shoot people would not be trying to flee and firing only at the last minute as attackers were upon him, and could have shot plenty of other people. Just prima facie, I think the behavior you see on video is that of a defensive shooter. I've thought this since three days after the event when NYT ran video.

On whether the force used was necessary to eliminate the threats, I don't see that he had lesser-force alternatives available to him in those particular circumstances.

On provocation, the prosecution had only very dubious evidence and anyway it wouldn't have made a legal difference if Rittenhouse had provoked through illegal conduct: it would give him a duty to retreat, but retreat was not an option in his situation.

Hancock is concerned to expose Rittenhouse's bad character for his own reasons. I find this interesting (there's more stuff I might post). But his bad character doesn't seem relevant to his self-defense case to me.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 8:01 am
In spite of the obvious coaching, I thought (and still think) that his account of the attacks and his motives for shooting was consistent with the evidence of other witnesses and of video testimony, and that the prosecution had virtually no evidence inconsistent with it (indeed several prosecution witnesses buttressed KR's self-defense case). Since he is presumed innocent, I thought the verdict was correct, because the prosecution didn't give me conclusive reason to reject any part of his claim to have acted in reasonable self-defense.

....

Hancock is concerned to expose Rittenhouse's bad character for his own reasons. I find this interesting (there's more stuff I might post). But his bad character doesn't seem relevant to his self-defense case to me.

So, just so we're clear, the fact that his first impulse was to run his mouth about having snipers on rooftops...

Kyle stated, "We put SNIPERS on the roof so they could shoot down to stop any threats."

WHAT? WHOAAAA? We all looked at each other in disbelief that he would ACTUALLY say that out loud.

.... doesn't at all give you any pause in hindsight that maybe his motivation was in fact suspect? Part of me wants to believe that you're trying to say that without Kyle's own pre-coaching testimony which would have given insight into his motivations and inclinations towards creative interpretations of self-defense and permissible force, there was no other solid evidence of his motivation. But, to be fair, given that I do feel your past arguments haven't always been in good faith, I'm probably a little crazy right now to expect you'll give any weight to the above quote at all.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 8:13 am
So, just so we're clear, the fact that his first impulse was to run his mouth about having snipers on rooftops...

Kyle stated, "We put SNIPERS on the roof so they could shoot down to stop any threats."

WHAT? WHOAAAA? We all looked at each other in disbelief that he would ACTUALLY say that out loud.

.... doesn't at all give you any pause in hindsight that maybe his motivation was in fact suspect? Part of me wants to believe that you're trying to say that without Kyle's own pre-coaching testimony which would have given insight into his motivations and inclinations towards creative interpretations of self-defense and permissible force, there was no other solid evidence of his motivation. But, to be fair, given that I do feel your past arguments haven't always been in good faith, I'm probably a little crazy right now to expect you'll give any weight to the above quote at all.

Sure I think he had fantasies of himself as a combat medic and thought it was cool to use this military terminology and so on. He mouthed off about shooting looters outside CVS, while just sitting in the car. All this stuff would be prejudicial.

Meanwhile, in the incidents in question, it looks like he was attacked without provocation and tried to flee before shooting. So it doesn't matter if his motives for going to Kenosha were impure. He didn't behave like someone who wanted to shoot anyone.

Part of my thought is that even if a Proud Boy or white supremacist avowedly went there looking to instigate trouble, he could still have a good self-defense case if attacked. Suppose the Proud Boy only wanted to start fist fights and someone recognizes him and pre-emptively starts shooting at him before he did anything. He could have the legal right to defend himself with deadly force.

BTW you say I argue in bad faith, but please recognize that I'm the one who posted that account in the interests of honestly giving information that might be contrary to my own view.

ETA: I should admit honestly: this and other things Hancock has posted do give me a bit of pause. But when I read them carefully, it does look to me like they don't fundamentally undermine his self-defense case. Hancock for all his contempt is notably careful to say "I'm not saying he wasn't attacked, I'm not saying he didn't defend himself".

Meanwhile, in the incidents in question, it looks like he was attacked without provocation and tried to flee before shooting. So it doesn't matter if his motives for going to Kenosha were impure. He didn't behave like someone who wanted to shoot anyone.

He went to a volatile situation with a gun. If you carry a gun that's proof right there that he intended to shoot someone. Why carry a gun if you don't intend to use it? He couldn't even legally buy a gun yet still managed to get h old of one and take it to a protest/riot. I personally think, in his very immature mind, that he was just aching for any reason to shoot someone. His brain's judgment area was not (and still is not - as it gets there in your mid-20s) developed enough to know that a fantasy about "defending" himself or others ends up with real people dead.

ETA: yes, I'm a gun owner. We have long guns and pistols. My son is a championship shooter. I'm not against gun ownership per se, but I don't ever just carry one around in my day to day life. The ones in our home are locked up, the ammunition is locked up separately.

The difference between a responsible gun owner

And a vigilante looking for any excuse to kill

Then there are the enablers and apologists of such killers

IMO just as guilty

I’ve found the best way to defend myself is to not have my mom drive me to Kenosha with my training AR-15.

I own firearms and found the best way to stay out of trouble is to not go looking for it; Rittenhouse went purposefully looking for it, and the only reason (IMHO) he F-edA, and didn't find out was because of that judge.

I personally think it was jury nullification, but what do I know?

One thing I am curious about is the scope of any waiver of attorney-client privilege between Rittenhouse and his counsel. All that stuff his attorney said about coaching him in the script - what he said to Rittenhouse and what Rittenhouse said to him - would ordinarily be privileged. Unless Rittenhouse waived the privilege - either expressly or by operation of law (by accusing the lawyer in a formal proceeding of ineffective assistance of counsel, for example) - we shouldn’t be hearing from the lawyer about their trial prep. I mean, even if Rittenhouse called his lawyer an incompetent piece of crap in his whine-fest about his childhood (which I haven’t read and don’t plan to), I doubt that would waive the privilege.

So I’m curious.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 8:29 am Sure I think he had fantasies of himself as a combat medic and thought it was cool to use this military terminology and so on. He mouthed off about shooting looters outside CVS, while just sitting in the car. All this stuff would be prejudicial.

You call it prejudicial, I call it 'state of mind', and I don't think either of us are attorneys, so we can chalk it up to a difference of opinion but let's discuss.

This is actually kind of my point, in fact. A combat medic's job is not to confront, not to defend others (except the patients in their care), and definitely effin' not to think about posting snipers on rooftops. But even when confronted with evidence that Kyle's fascination was not to think of himself as a combat medic but to PRESENT the idea that he was a combat medic to cover darker impulses that he was the shooting protagonist in a video game, you look for and defend the more palatable answer.

Yes, I do give you credit for posting the article, I'll grant you that. I just think you're married to this idea that doesn't let in a scintilla of evidence that Kyle may actually have had bad intentions.

I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:25 am I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

This site is free, with a low barriers to entry, and only a few reasonable rules....

Isn’t that one of the joys of the 1A?

To be able to defend the indefensible and to excuse evil?

This shitheel went to Kenosha all horny to shoot someone, then he did.