Kyle Rittenhouse: Teen's homicide trial for Kenosha shootings opens with jury selection

[westwall]

The only video I saw showed him backing away with his hands up and gun pointed up and back, then Rittenhouse shot him. I also find no evidence of a chain it was claimed Rosenbaum was armed with.

Watch the opening defense statement. They show a picture of the pedo with it.

 

[westwall]

It shows no such thing. Haven't we been through this already? Was it you or was it some other rightard who couldn't produce an image of Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse?

Yeah, it actually does. But you are a clueless moron. I can see how you could be easily mislead.

 

[JohnDB]

Why was Ahmed Abury shot seven times?

Cop ran out of ammo....

Well one juror gone...and the judge dismissed him as regrettably as possible...

Showing that this whole thing is a set up for dismissal eventually.

 

[Faun]

The only video I saw showed him backing away with his hands up and gun pointed up and back, then Rittenhouse shot him. I also find no evidence of a chain it was claimed Rosenbaum was armed with.

Grosskreutz initially approached Rittenhouse but backed up when Rittenhouse shot Huber, holding his hands up as if surrendering. Then as Rittenhouse started to turn away, Grosskreutz charged him, reaching for Rittenhouse's gun with his left hand when Rittenhouse shot him in his right arm. To me, that's evidence Grosskreutz intended to disarm him, not kill him. If he wanted to kill him, he would have just shot him. Instead, there's no video showing him ever pointing his gun at Rittenhouse.

As far as Rosenbaum carrying a chain, that is true. I'm not sure from where or when he got it as there's video of him from earlier and there's no sign of the chain; and I'm not sure what happened to it as he didn't have it on him when he was shot; but he did have one for a while...

 

[Faun]

Yeah, it actually does. But you are a clueless moron. I can see how you could be easily mislead.

If only that were true, you'd be able to post an image of him pointing his gun at Rittenhouse; but alas...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why was Ahmed Abury shot seven times?

Cop ran out of ammo....

Well one juror gone...and the judge dismissed him as regrettably as possible...

Showing that this whole thing is a set up for dismissal eventually.

Uh... not sure where you get your news, but...

 

[JohnDB]

Uh... not sure where you get your news, but...

Apparently you don't pay attention to any of it...you just comment without knowing anything about it. Otherwise you would know exactly what I was talking about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Apparently you don't pay attention to any of it...you just comment without knowing anything about it. Otherwise you would know exactly what I was talking about.

Welp, I think you meant Jacob Blake, first of all.

And the juror screwed up. Go whine to him.

 

[westwall]

If only that were true, you'd be able to post an image of him pointing his gun at Rittenhouse; but alas...

The video is there, only a dumbshit, like you, would allow a violent rioter to point a gun at you.

Please do so the next time a riot comes to your town.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm thinking that the defense isn't going to have to put up a defense...(they haven't even started yet.)
Even the prosecution's witnesses have testified against the state up to this point.

Nothing the prosecutor has alleged has been proven even slightly yet by any testimony.

 

[Correll]

The police had any potential for riot under control, and Rittenhouse was not a local with any property to protect.

This is the first time I have heard anyone claim that the police had the situation under control. I would suggest that the fact that a mob attacked an individual and the individual had to defend himself with rifle fire, having to kill two and wound a third, before the mob finally settled down, indicates that the situation was NOT under control.

Nor was he doing anything to protect property, which would have meant staying with others to form defensive perimeters.
He was instead going up to individuals and challenging them.

He was with the group. He left to provide medical aid to an individual and then was prevented from rejoining the group by the police.

The police and counter demonstrators most certainly did let people join them, and Rittenhouse immediately did run to the police after he started shooting.

No, the police did not. And Rittenhouse tried to run to the police, after he STOPPED shooting only to be attacked again and again, giving him a need to shot again and then again.

Then FINALLY, he was able to break free from the bloodthirsty mob and run to the police. Who did not even see him as a possible issue and drove past him.

It was not Rittenhouse's city, property, or interests.

It certainly was. He is an American, and it was an American city.

He did not even know which side was in the right.

I think he knew that the people trying to kill him, were wrong to do so, and reacted accordingly.

Nor is a rifle the right way to express political beliefs.

Our founding fathers disagreed. So do our founding documents. And our culture. And our history. And our laws.

What if all the demonstrators or rioters had been carrying rifles?

Then the armed mob would have gunned Rittenhouse down like a dog.

The police would have had to shoot them.

With dems in charge, we cannot guess what their orders would be.

Anyone carrying a rifle had to be shot.

Funny. Rittenhouse, once the mob stopped attacking him, did not have to be shot. He just stopped shooting people, once the mob stopped attacking him. Almost like the mob was the problem, not him.

No one can be allowed to carry a rifle in a demonstration or riot, (except the individual property owners, on their own property).

That is the law. in other nations with less freedom. And no right of self defense.


IN this country, Rittenhouse was fully within his rights to have a rifle and to use it to defend himself.

 

[Correll]

Nope, he brought it illegally, in order to increase aggression towards those he did not like.
The police did not refuse to let him rejoin his group.
That is clear because after he shot, he ran towards the police and counter demonstrators.
He knew where they were and they were not turning anyone away.

What aggression? He did not use the rifle UNTIL AFTER HE WAS ATTACKED.

That is not aggression. That is defense. SELF DEFENSE.

What you claim, does not fit with what actually happened. Not even a little.

 

[Correll]

Yes they do, when they realize they just murdered someone and they realize they need to pretend there was a reason for doing that and they have to pretend they were frightened.

Rittenhouse was running away before the first shot.

He was consistently trying to avoid his attackers.

Your claims are just not true.

 

[Correll]

He was, "actively engaged in killing"

No, he wasn't. IN each case, he immediately resumed his attempts to get away from the mob and was only resorted to violence when attacked.


In many of the photos, you can see plenty of other people around, who are not attacking him, and whom Rittenhouse thus does NOT engage.


Actively engaged in killing would have been continuing to look for and engage targets. Which was not what he was doing.


You are a liar.

 

[Faun]

The video is there, only a dumbshit, like you, would allow a violent rioter to point a gun at you.

Please do so the next time a riot comes to your town.

Of course there's video, only you're incapable of screen shotting a frame showing the gun pointed at Rittenhouse since that never occurred. Hysterically, you actually believe it's true just be you saying it's true.

 

[Faun]

No, he wasn't. IN each case, he immediately resumed his attempts to get away from the mob and was only resorted to violence when attacked.


In many of the photos, you can see plenty of other people around, who are not attacking him, and whom Rittenhouse thus does NOT engage.


Actively engaged in killing would have been continuing to look for and engage targets. Which was not what he was doing.


You are a liar.

LOL

Tell the FBI their definition is wrong.

"actively engaged in killing"

 

[AZrailwhale]

I hear your opinion but I'm not one of 'you people', I'm a Canadian with no dog in your coming gun fight, to turn the Big Lie into the truth.

You should restrict yourself to discussing Canadian matters and crime then. We aren’t interested in your comments.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You should restrict yourself to discussing Canadian matters and crime then. We aren’t interested in your comments.

Well, they -are- good for a laugh.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You should restrict yourself to discussing Canadian matters and crime then. We aren’t interested in your comments.

Then don't read them, you insufferable crybaby.

 

[Donald H]

You should restrict yourself to discussing Canadian matters and crime then. We aren’t interested in your comments.

Don't worry about it, only those interested in what I say reply to my posts. Those who aren't interested just ignore them.