quote:

Originally posted by 1320racer:
Just took an opinion poll with 4 people that work for me, 3 said he’s guilty for all the reasons I have outlined here, 1 said self defense but he’s a hunter, gun enthusiast and owns the same weapon this punk kid used to murder 2 people.

Really? Well geeze then call off the trial! Ed's already landed a decision! Somebody call the press!

The FACT is that the attorneys can color this any which way with details about the losers who chased him as well. Those details do not matter either.
They chased a guy who was carrying a rifle Ed. Began to beat him, and aimed a firearm at him, and he defended himself. We can try to bring prejudicial evidence into it. I'm every bit the lawyer that you are......which is none. So I guess we are both just dopes with opinions, just like your coworkers.

quote:

Originally posted by 1320racer:
Says our resident retard, liar and idiot^^^^

According to the Liberal woke cancel culture Mob, yes I am all those things! WoooHoooo!!

Let's go Brandonton!

Love the way the keyboard jurist have convicted this kid without ALL the facts. A four person survey of residents from the northeast (75% vote to convict), now that is some good sampling. Ed, I'm not so sure that your 5 facts/truths are accurate. Unless your in the court room your information comes from the liberal/left wing press and I'm sure they have no agenda. All you keyboard lawyers chime in and tell me where I'm wrong.

I’ll tell you and the others here that believe this punk kid that murdered 2 people, tried for 3, killed them in self defense when he’s found guilty of at least several of the charges and sentenced to years in prison.

There is no defense of the fact that he left his home, drove across state lines, borrowed an assault rifle and was the only person at this riot to shoot 3 people and kill 2 of them.

The jury has not even gotten the case. ALL the facts are not in so no decision can or should be made.

A kangaroo court of TV brainwashed, mindcontrolled liberal woke cowards, who dwell on their knee's 24/7 like Ed maybe.

Don't mean Rittenhouse is guilty though.

When an individual that is participating in a riot with a loaded gun points it at you,everyone knows you are just supposed to put up your hands and say "May I Help You"

Rittenhouse was / is a dangerous a man because he was never on his knee's like the police who were ordered to stand down, by their masters.

The police knew it wasn't right to stand down for looters, why didn't police do their job?

That should be the question the media is asking.

It'll never happen because the media is controlled by the same as the police!

Duh!

quote:

The FACT is that the attorneys can color this any which way with details about the losers who chased him as well.

We all know what happens if you lie to the FBI. Lie to the police and it can be used against you in a court of law. Lie on the witness stand any you can be prosecuted for perjury. Conversely, the FBI, police and lawyers are under no obligation to tell you the truth. The table is tilted.

quote:

Originally posted by 1320racer:
Facts and Truth…

1. Rittenhouse left his home in Antioch Illinois and drove 25 miles, about 40 minutes to Kenosha Wisconsin
2. Rittenhouse borrowed an AK-15
3. Rittenhouse ignored the 8pm curfew
4. Rittenhouse ignored the Wisconsin law that states no one under 18 is permitted to carry a firearm unless hunting.
5. Rittenhouse had no business being there, was not there to defend his property nor protect his family.

An AK-15 huh? You sure don't see many of those . Well, at least you didn't call it an "assault weapon" or an "assault rifle". Assault weapon is a made up term, by the way, that no one seems to agree on the definition of. An assault rifle is one with fully automatic fire capability. You can legally own one of those, but very, very few people actually do. You would think they grow on trees though, if you got your firearm knowledge from Hollywood. Take care. Tom Worthington

Rittenhouse was no slave. We need more like Rittenhouse, not less.

quote:

Originally posted by Tom396:

quote:

Originally posted by 1320racer:
Facts and Truth…

1. Rittenhouse left his home in Antioch Illinois and drove 25 miles, about 40 minutes to Kenosha Wisconsin
2. Rittenhouse borrowed an AK-15
3. Rittenhouse ignored the 8pm curfew
4. Rittenhouse ignored the Wisconsin law that states no one under 18 is permitted to carry a firearm unless hunting.
5. Rittenhouse had no business being there, was not there to defend his property nor protect his family.

An AK-15 huh? You sure don't see many of those . Well, at least you didn't call it an "assault weapon" or an "assault rifle". Assault weapon is a made up term, by the way, that no one seems to agree on the definition of. An assault rifle is one with fully automatic fire capability. You can legally own one of those, but very, very few people actually do. You would think they grow on trees though, if you got your firearm knowledge from Hollywood. Take care. Tom Worthington

Not arguing with you Tom. Technically no rifle gun or anything else is a assault ________ until it used to assault someone. Hell a pencil is assault weapon if I shoved into Ed's throat threw his wind pipe.

Damn shame he did not kill al three one less POS on the face of the earth. If there is a conviction with the way the prosecution is handling this bs case it prove one thing the fix was in before the trial began.

Noway in hell you can call shooting someone chasing you with a gun threatening to kill you anything but self defense. Ok correction not if you have a tenth of a brain. That would be reason some would call it murder.

Thos ak 15 and ar14's are dang hard to find.

Oh man I missed the AK-15 thing. A Bidenism.

So today's star Prosecution witness is an amateur Journalist. He forgot to record or take pictures when this was going down. When asked why he did not record it or take pictures he said he is not a Professional. Okay then what was he even doing there? He said he saw the 3 rd guy get shot in the arm but testified that was all he saw. Then after he saw the pictures from others getting shot he said yes he saw that to. But he is not changing his story. He clearly stated that the guy who got shot in the arm did not pull a loaded gun on Mr. Rittenhouse and yet there are MULTIPLE pictures of Mr. Rittenhouse on the ground with his left hand up blocking and the AR-15 (AK-15 for Stupid people) "Let's go Brandon"

Then he said he forgot stuff because there was people asking him questions and he was nervous and anxious. But he remembered them when they showed him the picture. He is stressed and did not remember some things. Basically he shot holes all in his own testimony. The defense asked him something like why he could not remember the most important things like 2 people getting shot right in front of you? I think he said he is not a detective and does not do this for a living.

I feel for the kid he was obviously uncomfortable on the stand and did not want to be there. Still how could you only remember one of the three shootings you supposedly saw and get one of the major details wrong about the one you did see? I mean running up to someone on the ground and pointing a gun at them is significant little detail.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Curly1,

"KENOSHA, WIS. — A witness to the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings who warned the teen before the deadly incident not to rile protesters expressed skepticism about the murder case against him, saying the first man Rittenhouse killed was “obviously” chasing him.

Kristan Harris, a self-described citizen journalist and editor of Milwaukee-based outlet TheRundownLive, was in Kenosha, Wisconsin livestreaming the unrest on Facebook on August 25 last year, the night Rittenhouse shot three men. Kenosha had devolved following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man, by a white Kenosha police officer.

During the first week of the trial, prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse had chased the first man he shot, Joseph Rosenbaum. Harris said video evidence tells a different story."



The evidence, videos and pictures obviously prove that Rittenhouse was being chased and the prosecution argued that he chased the first man he shot. That makes the prosecution look really stupid when they say one thing then put up evidence that proves them wrong. Did the Prosecution even look at the videos and pictures before they presented their case? This is just another of the many witnesses that testified that Rittenhouse was being chased. That evidence is factual and proven by video and pictures.

3 facts.
1) He had the right to be there.
2) He had the right to have the firearm
3) He had the right to defend his life with the loss of the others.


Nothing else matters.

RITTENHOUSE TRIAL UPDATE:

If the jury in Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial doesn’t vote to acquit, he’ll likely have excellent grounds for appeal on jury intimidation. A man claiming to be a friend or relative of George Floyd released a video that went viral, claiming activists were taking photos of jurors in the courtroom so they could retaliate if they didn’t vote to convict.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-p...hotographed-n1530548

(Incidentally, the George Floyd/racism aspect of this case is a bit bizarre, considering Rittenhouse and the three men he shot are all white.)

Even if that video is nothing but Internet bluster, the very idea of such a threat might be enough to scare jurors out of being impartial, and that should be obvious grounds for an appeal.

However, despite the local bias against Rittenhouse (two-thirds of potential jurors said they’d already decided he was guilty), if the jurors are impartial, I don’t see how they vote any way other than acquittal on self-defense. The prosecution’s case has blown up in their faces so many times, you’d think the D.A. was Wile E. Coyote. Their “star witness” contradicted their narrative of Rittenhouse chasing the men down (they chased him down.) FBI surveillance video also contradicted it. Another witness testified that one of the men shot was acting aggressive and threatened to kill him and Rittenhouse.

On Monday, the prosecution called to the stand the only agitator shot by Rittenhouse who survived. He claimed he was running toward Rittenhouse to save him from the other two who were attacking him, and that he yelled at one to stop hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard. But the defense attorney forced him to admit, “with the benefit of hindsight,” that that wasn’t true. He also got him to admit that he was advancing on Rittenhouse and pointing a pistol at him when Rittenhouse shot him. The state’s case imploded so thoroughly, a prosecutor was caught on camera face-palming (burying his face in his hand in frustration.)

https://www.westernjournal.com...tenhouse-moved-shot/

The defense also pointed out that that guy is suing the city for $10 million in damages, but he didn’t mention in his filings that he was carrying and pointing a gun at the time he was shot.

The jurors might fear riots if they don’t vote guilty, but Nick Arama at Redstate.com offered an alternative: the defense could ask the judge for a directed verdict.

https://redstate.com/nick-aram...enhouse-case-n472233

That means the judge could rule that no jury could possibly be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and throw out some or all of the charges. The mainstream media aren’t covering the terrible job the prosecutors are doing, but if there are riots, their bias could be a contributing factor. Anyone who riots over Rittenhouse being acquitted definitely wasn’t informed about what's going on in that courtroom.

Rosenbaum (Idiot number 1)the first guy who was shot. He was chasing Rittenhouse and had threatened to kill him. He had just got out of a Mental Institution for trying to commit Suicide that very day.

quote:

The judge allowed the defense to elicit testimony about Rosenbaum’s mental illness because prosecutors brought up mention of medication. Had prosecutors not touched on the topic, it is unlikely the judge would have let the defense bring it up.

On the day he was killed, Rosenbaum had been released from a Milwaukee hospital. The jury was told that much, but not why he had been admitted — after a suicide attempt.

Rittenhouse, 18, is charged with shooting three men, two fatally, in the summer of 2020. The one-time police youth cadet was 17 when he went to Kenosha with an AR-style rifle and a medical kit in what he said was an effort to safeguard property from the demonstrations that broke out over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white Kenosha police officer.

Rittenhouse is white, as were those he shot.

Prosecutors have portrayed Rittenhouse as the instigator of the bloodshed, while his lawyer has argued that he acted in self-defense, suggesting among other things that Rittenhouse feared his weapon would be taken away and used against him.

On Thursday, witnesses testified that a “hyperaggressive” Rosenbaum angrily threatened to kill Rittenhouse that night and that Rosenbaum was gunned down after he chased Rittenhouse and lunged for the young man’s rifle.

Idiot number 2. was arrested and charged for attempted murder of his own brother later plea bargained down to assault. He had chased Rittenhouse down and was kicking and hitting him in the Head with a skateboard while Rittenhouse was on the ground. That is when Rittenhouse fired on him in SELF DEFENSE. This guy was also from out of town and you could say had no business being there.

Idiot number 3 ran up on him and pulled a loaded pistol on him when he was shot in the arm. This guy was also from out of town and you could say had no business being there. This guy had also been "Demonstrating" with BLM for over 75 days and up to 100 days by his own admission. Now he really was there looking for trouble and he found it. He admitted under oath on the stand that he did in fact point the loaded pistol at Rittenhouse when he was on the ground and that was when he got shot. That was when the Prosecution lawyer did a huge face palm and knew the case was over.

The pictures and videos clearly verify these things and have been verified in court by the PROSECUTION Witnesses.
The common denominator in all three idiots is they chased him down and assaulted him first. This has all been proven by the PROSECUTION attorneys.

The defense does not have to do a thing to win this case the Prosecuting attorneys have done it for them. They may be able to hang Rittenhouse for breaking curfew but then what about the other hundreds of people there? And I do not think breaking Curfew is a Hanging offense in Kenosha.

You have to remember what he is being tried for is MURDER, not breaking curfew. The Prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was SELF DEFENSE.

So at this point the Defense when they are up can say "The Prosecution has proven beyond any doubt that it was SELF DEFENSE so lets talk about the other charges."

Curfew charges dropped today on the news..

quote:

Originally posted by stk 758 BP!:
Curfew charges dropped today on the news..

Then they have nothing to hang him for. Lol.

The guy testifying today just said that the PROSECUTION called him into their office and asked him to CHANGE his testimony! Unbelievable!