Fogbow

Yeah..

Killer Kyle is below average intellect…

Except his kill score is above average.

A deadly combination

And of course there is the

... a middle school dropout who was “angry at the world” with a history of violence and an unhealthy obsession with guns and killing...

angle, which is never a good look for someone to see him in a positive light, and which some people don't want to draw attention to again. for some reason.

Which is why Killer Kyle’s lawyers and judge kept this from the jury.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 8:22 am Which is why Killer Kyle’s lawyers and judge kept this from the jury.

IANAL, but my understanding is that character evidence is generally not admissable to show propensity to commit a crime. There are circumstances in which it can come in, but not simply to argue that committing the crime would be acting in accordance with character. This came up in the judge's reasons for disallowing the CVS video, the parking lot fight video, and evidence from the Proud Boys incident.

Yes. Evidence of Killer Kyle’s premeditation would have harmed his claim of self defence.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:48 pm Yes. Evidence of Killer Kyle’s premeditation would have harmed his claim of self defence.

I would say that none of that is evidence of premeditation as that term is normally used in conjunction with murder charges: it's not evidence of a pre-existing plan to kill. The state's case was not based on the idea that the killings were premeditated. The most serious charge, the one that carried a mandatory life sentence, required finding an intent to kill, but the jury instructions for that charge are very explicit that "there need not be any appreciable time between the formation of the intent and the act" and spell this out at some length.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:24 am

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 8:22 am Which is why Killer Kyle’s lawyers and judge kept this from the jury.

IANAL, but my understanding is that character evidence is generally not admissable to show propensity to commit a crime. There are circumstances in which it can come in, but not simply to argue that committing the crime would be acting in accordance with character. This came up in the judge's reasons for disallowing the CVS video, the parking lot fight video, and evidence from the Proud Boys incident.

never posts any other time but shows up to defend his little killer boy

“We put snipers on the roof” - Killer Kyle went hunting that night


And the Judge was OK with that

Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 @ScooterCasterNY wrote: #NOW Paul Prediger, Formerly Known As Gaige Grosskreutz, a man who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on August 25 2020 in Kenosha, speaks on Kent State University campus ahead of Kyle Rittenhouse speech tonight.

LOOK! Loot at the EEEEVIIILLL in his eyes! No wonder Kyle was able to KNOW he didn't deserve to live as his bullets only found the undeserving.

Kyle’s only regret is he didn’t get a third kill

EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE IS ANTIFA!

Kyle Rittenhouse @ThisIsKyleR wrote: Thank you ANTIFA for the friendly good bye!

The kids are OK:

good on them!

David Hancock @DaveHan06 wrote: He is incapable of shutting his mouth and not being provocative. Speaking of provocation, that is precisely what Kyle’s case came down too. The key question was did Kyle provoke anyone by pointing his weapon at them. Kyle testified he did not, but he bragged to his friends on Snapchat that he did, several times. On that note, I’ll see you guys later.

https://x.com/DaveHan06/status/1780382762958008562

Once again Killer Kyle shows he is against those that are Anti fascist

Well of course Kyle had to “aim down on someone”
His trigger finger was itching to start killing..

Expect his apologist to wave away reality (again).

Ford Fischer @FordFischer wrote: Kyle Rittenhouse speaks at Kent State University

I remember taking the ASVAB in high school. I think it was my Junior year, so 1986/87 or somewhere thereabouts. I got a 97. The recruiters sent a lot of letters, until my dad called them. I think he called the USAF recruiter, introduced himself as SMSgt and that was about where it ended. The recruiters talk to each other I guess. LOL

jez wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 8:52 pm I remember taking the ASVAB in high school. I think it was my Junior year, so 1986/87 or somewhere thereabouts. I got a 97. The recruiters sent a lot of letters, until my dad called them. I think he called the USAF recruiter, introduced himself as SMSgt and that was about where it ended. The recruiters talk to each other I guess. LOL

I took it around the same time I was preparing for ACT/SAT because I thought it might be a good practice test and also got in the high 90's. Then all the recruiters were filling my mailbox, showing up at school trying to set up meetings at my house for the whole 1-2 years until I graduated. I was too young and it was just after Desert Storm, so the idea of getting deployed to war was a real thing again and even if i wanted to enlist, no way could I get a parent to sign off on it.

When I enlisted in the Air Force in early 1969 I had to take a test. I don't remember if it was called the ASVAB or what. I don't think it was called that. In the end I received what they called the AFQT score. It maxed at 99 in each of four areas. I could choose an area if I had a high enough score in that area, but I could not pick an exact job in that area.

zekeb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:52 pm When I enlisted in the Air Force in early 1969 I had to take a test. I don't remember if it was called the ASVAB or what. I don't think it was called that. In the end I received what they called the AFQT score. It maxed at 99 in each of four areas. I could choose an area if I had a high enough score in that area, but I could not pick an exact job in that area.

Probably the Airman Qualifying Exam which gave scores for four areas: mechanical, administrative, general, and electronics. I took it in 1972 and got 75 in mechanical, 45 in admin, 75 in general, and 65 in electronics. They put me in admin. I also took a second test just for women called Armed Forces Women's Selection Test (AFWST). All women applicants had to submit a photo with their application. One of the recruiters took one of me. I was wearing makeup and he asked me to darken my eyebrows a little which I did. Although I'm pretty sure I would have been accepted with light eyebrows.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 8:42 pm

Ford Fischer @FordFischer wrote: Kyle Rittenhouse speaks at Kent State University

I notice the good-sized, predominantly friendly audience included a LOT of older-looking white people, whom I would guess are non-students from the general public.

One thing that stood out to me: he says he's grateful his jury "got it right", says others do not always get it right, listing as examples the Derek Chauvin and Daniel Perry juries. He also mentions Nicolae Miu who was recently found guilty in the "Apple River stabbing" case in WI after unsuccessfully arguing self-defense.

I'm not aware of him ever mentioning any opinion on the George Floyd case before and have always been a bit curious what he thought of it. He didn't say anything more about it. I suppose it's not surprising he has this opinion given the direction he's gone in. In other contexts he has said he "supports BLM", but in explanation gives only vacuous generalities about all lives mattering and everyone having the right to peacefully protest. I've never thought he really supports BLM as a political movement, in the sense of accepting its premises and policy goals.

He's a liar. He didn't "smell" the burning, he wasn't even in Kenosha during the actual riot. He killed two and wounded one on a night of generally peaceful protest, aside from someone setting a garbage dumpster on fire. Also, Rosenbaum never threatened to kill him. Had he made that threat I am absolutely certain Kyle would have testified that Rosenbaum made a verbal threat to kill him. He's only saying these things to sway public opinion. In a less gun crazy place he likely would have had a judge without bias and a jury likely would have convicted him. He clearly was the aggressor. One of the guys who was there was deliberately babysitting him all night (but sadly lost sight of him right before the murders) precisely because Kyle was a loose cannon ready to go off and behaving in a deliberately provocative way towards people who are sick and tired of the gun violence and crooked cops. The kind that just waved at Kyle and gave him water even though he clearly was a baby walking around with a lethal weapon and completely out of his depth.

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:22 am He's a liar. He didn't "smell" the burning, he wasn't even in Kenosha during the actual riot.

Per all reports and his testimony, he drove to his job in the Kenosha area the day before the shootings, Monday August 24, then stayed over at Dominick Black's house near downtown Kenosha. That was a night of heavy destruction. According to the New Yorker piece they monitored on social media and could indeed smell the smoke:

Paige Williams in the New Yorker wrote:On the second night of the protests, he finished his shift at around 8 p.m., and hung out with Black at Black’s stepfather’s place, two miles west of the courthouse. On social media, people were spreading false rumors that rioters planned to attack residential neighborhoods. The teens watched live streams of events that were unfolding so close to home that, when they stepped outside, they could smell smoke and hear screams.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:22 am Also, Rosenbaum never threatened to kill him. Had he made that threat I am absolutely certain Kyle would have testified that Rosenbaum made a verbal threat to kill him.

Rittenhouse did testify to Rosenbaum's threat. So did prosecution witness Ryan Balch.

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:22 am One of the guys who was there was deliberately babysitting him all night (but sadly lost sight of him right before the murders) precisely because Kyle was a loose cannon ready to go off and behaving in a deliberately provocative way towards people who are sick and tired of the gun violence and crooked cops.

I think this characterization involves you reading between the lines of Balch's testimony, making your own interpretation. It is not in any sense something Balch simply said.

Balch did say Rittenhouse "seemed a ittle underequipped and underexperienced and that's why we stayed with him.
Binger: "Did you feel like you needed to keep an eye on the defendant?"
Balch: "Yes and no. I felt that as young as he looked and what the way he was though, just the general way he was carrying himself, the protestors would have seen that as a weakness and tried to exploit that."

Balch also said that when a protestor yelled "Fuck you" at them, Rittenhouse responded "I love you too, ma'am" and Balch advised him it was better not to respond at all.

You're free to make whatever inferences you think reasonable from the testimony. But it seems plain inaccurate to me to say Balch ever testified Rittenhouse was a loose cannon and behaving in a deliberately provocative manner and that's why he kept an eye on him.

(If there is some other part of his testimony you are referring to, I'd like to know what it is.)