Rittenhouse jury just went to deliberate

[Flash]

If this redneck judge goes there - It will be SEVERE judicial misconduct. Can't do that legally or ethically after the case is handed to the jury for deliberation pal.

You haven't been watching the trial have you? The judge has been giving away the store to the corrupt dishonest Prosecution. Any other Judge would have dismissed the case long before now.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, here is a summary of the relevant facts as I have seen them:

1. Rittenhouse, who was legally armed with a long rifle and a medical kit, was moving down the street, asking if anyone needed attention.
2. Rittenhouse is encountered by Rosenbaum and the Ziminski couple, Joshua Ziminski is armed with and holding a handgun.
3. Rittenhouse yell's "friendly, friendly, friendly"
4. Ziminski yells "you won't do shit. Get him."
5. Rittenhouse runs away from Ziminski and Rosenbaum across a parking lot.
6. Rosenbaum throws something at Rittenhouse, likely a plastic bag.
7. On the other side of the parking lot, rioters who are bashing the shit out of cars are blocking Rittenhouse's retreat.
8. Rittenhouse stops when he sees the mob of rioters bashing cars.
9. Rosenbaum is quickly approaches Rittenhouse from the rear.
10. 1/4th of a second before Rosenbaum reaches Rittenhouse, Ziminski recklessly fires his handgun into the air (a felony).
11. Rittenhouse turns when he hears the gunshot and sees Rosenbaum nearly upon him trying to grab the rifle.
12. Rittenhouse fires 4 shots in less than 3/4ths of a second and runs away, around a group of parked cars.
13. From the other side of the encounter, near the rioting car bashers, 3 more gunshots from an unidentified person are fired from what sounds like a handgun.
14. Rittenhouse runs back around to where he was attacked by Rosenbaum and when he sees that he has shot Rosenbaum, he calls his friend who tells him to surrender to police.
15. Rittenhouse immediately heads toward the police blockade to turn himself in.
16. On his way, several people are yelling "he shot somebody, get him" and "cranium him."
17. An unidentified rioter runs up to the fleeing Rittenhouse and hits him square in the head with a rock, knocking Rittenhouse to the street in the middle of what appears to be a hostile mob trying to "get him."
18. Huber (skateboard man) hits Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street. Huber's girlfriend later admitted that Huber never witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting and that Huber acted based solely on what others were yelling.
18. Unidentified (identity withheld by prosecutors) Jump-Kick man kicks Rittenhouse in the head while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street.
19. Rittenhouse fires one defensive shot at Jump-Kick man but misses.
20. Huber (skateboard man) hits Rittenhouse in the head again with his skateboard while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street, then he tries to take the rifle from Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fires one shot, which kills Huber, stone cold dead on the street.
21. Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted that he too had not witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting, approached Rittenhouse with an illegal handgun.
22. Grosskreutz admitted that when Rittenhouse saw Grosskreutz hold up his hands in a "surrender" type gesture, Rittenhouse did not fire, but when Grosskreutz then pointed his illegal gun at Rittenhouse, only then did Rittenhouse shoot him.
23. Others were standing nearby holding various weapons. Rittenhouse did not shoot any of them presumably because they did not attempt to hit or kill him.
24. Rittenhouse got up and continued directly to police to surrender.

Now, nuance the **** out of all that.

GO.

Still waiting on a correction on the apparently UNDISPUTED facts I posted above.

Any takers?

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Correct. I don't allow for that. It was as clear of a case of self defense imaginable.


The ONLY shred of a leg the prosecution had to stand on, was teh idea that Rittenhouse was technically violating the law by possessing the gun and thus not allowed to claim self defense.


And that gun charge has been dropped.

Well, if it's such a clear cut case of self defense, why is the defense now demanding a mistrial over some video that's of a higher resolution but which wasn't shared with them? Surely the simple merits of the case should be enough to secure an acquittal, right?

The reality is that this is far from being a "clear case" of anything, and Rittenhouse's ass is still on the hot seat.

Aside from all of that, I have to say that I find Rittenhouse to be an impressive young man. He's poised as **** when conversing with the judge...

 

[jc456]

Yep. Stepping forward, to help defend society from rioters and looters and arsonists, at great risk to himself.


Any society that punishes that, is a sick and dying society.

again, just more evidence demofks are kkkers by backing a criminal like rosenbaum saying the n-word at a supposed BLM rally.

 

[JohnDB]

Still waiting on a correction on the apparently UNDISPUTED facts I posted above.

Any takers?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Well there were a couple of things but not that they matter much... Ziminski shot into the air a couple of seconds before Kyle started shooting. And it wasn't one shot at jump kick man but two...missed both times I thought...now I can be wrong on this but...not really relevant either.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well there were a couple of things but not that they matter much... Ziminski shot into the air a couple of seconds before Kyle started shooting. And it wasn't one shot at jump kick man but two...missed both times I thought...now I can be wrong on this but...not really relevant either.

I am reviewing the video on the Ziminski shot and Jump-Kick man, and will correct accordingly.

Thank you for the response.

 

[DrLove]

You haven't been watching the trial have you? The judge has been giving away the store to the corrupt dishonest Prosecution. Any other Judge would have dismissed the case long before now.

Dude, you live in a parallel universe aka Earth 2. Meanwhile here on Earth 1, you are FOS

 

[DrLove]

I wrote it. But I will link it here if you want.

Here: Dr. Love is ill-informed about the Rittenhouse matter.

Did you have a comment on any of that, or are you just here to troll like always?

Meh, you've never completed more than three sentences in your life.

 

[JohnDB]

Well, if it's such a clear cut case of self defense, why is the defense now demanding a mistrial over some video that's of a higher resolution but which wasn't shared with them? Surely the simple merits of the case should be enough to secure an acquittal, right?

The reality is that this is far from being a "clear case" of anything, and Rittenhouse's ass is still on the hot seat.

Aside from all of that, I have to say that I find Rittenhouse to be an impressive young man. He's poised as **** when conversing with the judge...

Because...
In closing arguments you can only comment on evidence brought out during the trial...say what you like about it but only evidence that was brought out.

The whole final summation by the prosecutor was based on Kyle provoking what had happened based entirely on the drone footage that was murky at best... when they had a 3X better video they denied having given to the court until they mentioned it. (Because they were using the copy the defense had)

(It's still not really super relevant because it was perfect self defense)

And the defense could have actually had the HD drone footage blown up and stabilized and argued successfully against it...and the defense would have had none of the closing arguments 2X they made them in front of the jury.

A prosecutor has taken an oath for the truth regardless of the outcome of the trials he participated in. And he denied the defense the truth and mischaracterized it the whole time.

That's why. The prosecutor prejudiced the jury by his closing remarks on evidence never given or knew was completely wrong.

 

[DrLove]

Here's this old case that talks about such motions and an appellate court's review of sufficiency of evidence claims.

State v. Escobedo

As far as I know, that is still good law, but I will consider anything you have that is contrary and more recent.

Apples to moonbeams ... Moonbeam

 

[hadit]

Let's get real here. Kyle was living out a fantasy and he got in over his head. Just like a lot of right wing clowns on here fantasize about killing people.

I've been telling people, those mindreading helmets you buy at the Spy vs Spy store don't work.

 

[john doe 101]

Are you admitting that someone else is typing for you?

So you cant provide the quotes. Thanks for admitting that.

 

[john doe 101]

I will agree with you about that. He should probably be fired, not because he is necessarily a shitty courtroom lawyer, but because he either sucks at case evaluation or he prosecuted maliciously. I will accept either answer.

From the little I've seen, I'd even go as far to say he comes off as clownish.

 

[tahuyaman]

I disagree that anything Rittenhouse did prior to Ziminiski firing the first shot into the air was provocative. The mere legal possession of a firearm by itself is not an act of provocation.

I’m a reasonable person. Im a retired US Army infantryman. I also had a second career as a Deputy Sheriff. It’s my view that anyone injecting them self into a violent riot armed with a rifle and carrying this rifle in a ready position is a provocative act.

That said, if your own home or property is in harms way, you should be able to defend your property and yourself

Rittenhouse needlessly place himself in harms way. His father’s home was not in danger. None of his family who lived near the area was at risk. He made a bad choice.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A correction to the relevant facts list:

in this video, at 0:33 you see an unidentified male threatening Rittenhouse with some sort of pole, which turns Rittenhouse back toward the parking lot where the first shooting occurred.

Video of First Encounter

I am still reviewing, trying to correct some facts for accuracy.

 

[tahuyaman]

Let's get real here. Kyle was living out a fantasy and he got in over his head. Just like a lot of right wing clowns on here fantasize about killing people.

He did get in over his head and I agree that he had some kind of hero complex he was trying to fulfill.

However I’m probably one of the more right wing members here and I certainly do not fantasize about killing anyone. That’s probably because of the two careers I worked during my adult life.

Some of the comments made by supposed conservatives here and in the media are unsupportable and very hypocritical in my view. Some are even embarrassing.

 

[eagle1462010]

Calling dead people "scumbags" is bad form. But you be you!

They had rap sheets and were burning or looting. You are just upset some of Mercs got what they deserved for being idiots.

Your side is always Violent when you dont get what you want. Karma comes and cry again. Oh well

Stop your bs and maybe this wont happen

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I’m a reasonable person. Im a retired US Army infantryman. I also had a second career as a Deputy Sheriff. It’s my view that anyone injecting them self into a violent riot armed with a rifle and carrying this rifle in a ready position is a provocative act.

It is legal in Wisconsin to open carry a rifle like Rittenhouse did. A legal act cannot, by itself, be deemed provocative for purposes of self-defense privilege.

 

[tahuyaman]

It is legal in Wisconsin to open carry a rifle like Rittenhouse did. A legal act cannot, by itself, be deemed provocative for purposes of self-defense privilege.

Legal or illegal isn’t the issue.

It is not prudent to arm yourself and leave the safe confines of your home and insert yourself into a violent riot. Nothing good happens when one does something like that.

I have always asked myself one question before I do something and that is…. “would an idiot do this?” If the answer is yes, I don’t do that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here are the screenshots of the unidentified pole man: