Rittenhouse

[babe]

Yes, absolutely 100%. The job of law enforcement was to investigate the incident and collect the evidence. Prosecution would then examine the evidence and decide on filing charges. The only way it would work with how you have just presented things would be if you believed the job of law enforcement was solely to find a way from the outset to get Kyle Rittenhouse. Prosecution in this case obstructed law enforcement because they had predecided to get Kyle and didn’t want facts to get in the way.

The facts surrounding Grosskreutz are of particular value in determining self-defense. Grosskreutz was armed and had used his gun earlier. Rittenhouse was running toward police to give himself up, not pointing his weapon at anyone, and Grosskreutz took off with gun in hand after Rittenhouse to shoot him before he could get to the police. After a freak series of events where Rittenhouse tripped and was attacked by Huber, Rittenhouse through sheer luck happened to be facing toward Grosskreutz and could see him coming. Grosskreutz held up his off hand with palm open as to indicate he meant no harm. Seeing that, Rittenhouse lowered his weapon from firing position at which Grosskreutz raised his Glock to take aim at Rittenhouse. Kyle was faster and shot Grosskreutz before Grosskreutz could get his shot off. Afterwards, Grosskreutz said that he wanted to empty his entire magazine into Rittenhouse.

I think, and law enforcement thinks, and the judge issuing the search warrant thinks that phone of the armed, motivated, and aggressive Grosskreutz would be extremely informative as to what Grosskreutz would have done if Kyle hadn’t happened to see him and used force to stop what Grosskreutz was trying to do.


With that judge it is business as usual. He has had that exact same rule for every case in his court for decades. He believes that word biases the jury. Although it hasn’t been widely reported in the media coverage, the prosecution got the much better end of forbidding the use of biasing terms. It is for that exact same reason that the defense is forbidden from referring to the two people who died as pedophiles and child molesters. The prosecution can’t call them victims and the defense can’t call them child molesters.

I like this idea, though it is anachronistic. Used to be that way, I know.

But we now have enlightened prosecutors who know who funded their election, and what their benefactors expect. Law, smaw. We have a better world to build once we clear out what we had.

A real, forward-looking progressive enlightened prosecutor doesn't need evidence, he needs dreams.

 

[babe]

Which part of the video shows the subtitles on his thought processes, again?

OK, so I watched this a couple of times.

The kid was running away and being chased. Was either tripped up from behind or fell to the ground. Was then assaulted by oncoming chasers, one of whom had a gun(it is said) I couldn't see it but it looked like the reason he was being "pointed at".

According to the law, "assault" occurs if you touch someone or threaten them with a deadly weapon. Looks like the chaser did that first.

So what I heard on the radio while driving this morning is that the prosecutor's witness admitted pointing the gun.

Offhand, if there's someone running away with a gun, I wouldn't chase him or try to take him down. Defense says he was assaulted by rioters because he was trying to put out a fire they set. He decided to get outta Dodge, but thjey weren't happy to let him just go.

It then becomes self-defense.

Thought processes? A kid being chased by rioters. Period. Self Defense.

 

[One Brow]

Thank you.

 

[LogGrad98]

I still can't see embedded media. Damn it's frustrating.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I still can't see embedded media. Damn it's frustrating.

It is a tweet from NY Times reporter Julie Bosman relaying that in testimony today in the trial Grosskreutz admitted that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse when he got shot.

 

[LogGrad98]

It is a tweet from NY Times reporter Julie Bosman relaying that in testimony today in the trial Grosskreutz admitted that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse when he got shot.

Thanks

 

[Red]

I'll admit that it would be much easier to get a grip on what Grosskreutz had in his head if law enforcement had been allowed to serve the warrant on Grosskreutz to get a copy of the messages he sent immediately before and subsequent to the video. Law enforcement wanted that information. A judge thought getting that information was relevant and proper. We should have that information. In interfering with the serving of that warrant, prosecutors obstructed justice.

Grosskreutz testified today…

Armed paramedic who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse testifies he thought teen was an active shooter | CNN

An armed paramedic who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year testified Monday that he pulled out his own firearm because he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

www.cnn.com

Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, testified that he unholstered his handgun on August 25, 2020, as he and a crowd followed Rittenhouse, who had just fatally shot another man. Rittenhouse fell to the ground, fired twice at an unknown person and then fatally shot Anthony Huber.

Grosskreutz, just feet away, put his hands in the air, videos show. He then saw Rittenhouse rerack his weapon -- a motion that loads it for gunfire, he testified.

"Reracking the weapon in my mind meant that the defendant pulled the trigger while my hands were in the air, but the gun didn't fire, so by reracking the weapon I inferred the defendant wasn't accepting my surrender," he testified.

Yet Grosskreutz did not pull the trigger of his weapon, he said.

"I was never trying to kill the defendant. In that moment I was trying to preserve my own life, but doing so while taking the life of another is not something I am capable or comfortable doing."

 

[Gameface]

This is part of the problem with this wild wild west reality we've created with gun culture. There are situations that can happen where multiple people think they are the "good guy with a gun" and legally and justifiably kill the other "good guy with a gun."

Hopefully after Rittenhouse is acquitted we can start to talk about solutions. Highly doubtful, but it needs to happen at some point.

 

[Safetydan]

This is part of the problem with this wild wild west reality we've created with gun culture. There are situations that can happen where multiple people think they are the "good guy with a gun" and legally and justifiably kill the other "good guy with a gun."

Hopefully after Rittenhouse is acquitted we can start to talk about solutions. Highly doubtful, but it needs to happen at some point.

I'm done with the second amendment talk. They're never going away. I might as well arm myself too I guess.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Grosskreutz testified today…

Armed paramedic who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse testifies he thought teen was an active shooter | CNN

An armed paramedic who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year testified Monday that he pulled out his own firearm because he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

www.cnn.com

Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, testified that he unholstered his handgun on August 25, 2020, as he and a crowd followed Rittenhouse, who had just fatally shot another man. Rittenhouse fell to the ground, fired twice at an unknown person and then fatally shot Anthony Huber.

Grosskreutz, just feet away, put his hands in the air, videos show. He then saw Rittenhouse rerack his weapon -- a motion that loads it for gunfire, he testified.

"Reracking the weapon in my mind meant that the defendant pulled the trigger while my hands were in the air, but the gun didn't fire, so by reracking the weapon I inferred the defendant wasn't accepting my surrender," he testified.

Yet Grosskreutz did not pull the trigger of his weapon, he said.

"I was never trying to kill the defendant. In that moment I was trying to preserve my own life, but doing so while taking the life of another is not something I am capable or comfortable doing."

Yep, thanks to the prosecution obstructing the evidence collection he was able to say that. Although it would have been far better to have a copy of the phone it will still be interesting to see what Grosskreutz's roommate-at-the-time Jacob Marshall testifies on Wednesday. I have a feeling Marshall is going to say Grosskreutz is lying.

 

[Gameface]

I'm done with the second amendment talk. They're never going away. I might as well arm myself too I guess.

I'm not really talking about gun rights. I think we need rules of engagement in an armed society.

Here's the deal. If I have a gun and I feel threatened I can use that gun to defend myself. Seems pretty basic and straightforward.

I tried looking for an article but didn't find one right away some I'm going to post my best recollection of an incident that happened several years ago in West Valley, I believe.

A man who was in the neighborhood watch was in his vehicle and armed with a legally concealed firearm. He saw three teenage girls acting in a way that he found suspicious so he started watching them, and followed them in his vehicle as they walked through the neighborhood. Eventually the girls get to a house and go inside. A short time later a man emerges from the house with a gun and is walking towards the neighborhood watch guy. Neighborhood watch guy feels threatened so raises his gun towards the man, in response that man raises his gun towards the neighborhood watch. They shoot at each other.

The man was a father of one of the girls. They had come inside saying that they were fleeing a creepy guy who has been following them through the neighborhood. This father grabs his trusty gun in case things get out of hand and goes out to confront the creepy guy who is stalking his daughter through the neighborhood.

Both men were in possession of their firearm legally. Both men only pointed their gun at the other when they legitimately felt threatened. Both shootings were essentially justified self-defense.

We need rules of engagement for people who are in possession of a firearm.

Just like the absolute stupidity of Rittenhouse getting right up in the middle of a protest that had turned violent while carrying an AR. For some stupid reason that was okay for him to do and we're going to find out that legally it was perfectly fine for him to put him self in danger intentionally and then shoot his way out of danger.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Just like the absolute stupidity of Rittenhouse getting right up in the middle of a protest that had turned violent while carrying an AR. For some stupid reason that was okay for him to do and we're going to find out that legally it was perfectly fine for him to put him self in danger intentionally and then shoot his way out of danger.

To be fair, if this was only a violent protest likely nothing would have happened. The first guy shot was a suicidal mental patient who had just been released earlier that day. I'm not being hyperbolic. He just got out and had all of his possessions in a clear plastic bag the institution had given to him. He had thrown that bag at Rittenhouse seconds before lunging at him.

You'd expect looting, burning, brick throwing, and graffiti because that is how you convince people that Black lives matter but I don't think much of anyone had suicidal mental patient on their riot bingo card. As for the rest of the heroes after the mental patient committed suicide by provocation, all they had to do was let Rittenhouse run down the street to surrender to police.