Jump to content

Crocodile Tears From Rittenhouse!


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

I couldn't stop laughing at the bullshit tears pouring from Kyle Rittenhouse's exasperated face.  It's as if he couldn't get the tears started, so he had to almost hyperventilate to get them flowing.  No Oscar for you! 

Then he says he doesn't know anything about "ammo", even though he was running around with a loaded AR-15 illegally transported between states that didn't even belong to him.  Cheers!

https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-crying-crocodile-tears-1648297

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think this is very clearly another instance where you guys are getting duped by the media agenda. Just like the Covington kids. Just like the Trump/Russia dossier. Its a pretty obvious case of self defense if you've taken any time to follow the real trial. He had these losers, adults 10-20 years older than him destroying property, threatening people. These low life's were carrying weapons. There are witnesses who have testified to this. Those are the only things that are relevant here. 

Like you had that one loser who survived saying Rittenhouse was only crying because he's upset he got caught..LOL, you fool. Take those stupid oversized earrings out and get a job. He got caught? Theres video of him walking straight up to the police and saying he shot people! Its not like he ran away and hid and then was later apprehended.

 

100% he will get off and some people like Lebrun James will throw tantrums because they've been misled. But its a testimony to their own ignorance if they choose to do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gregmal said:

I think this is very clearly another instance where you guys are getting duped by the media agenda. Just like the Covington kids. Just like the Trump/Russia dossier. Its a pretty obvious case of self defense if you've taken any time to follow the real trial. He had these losers, adults 10-20 years older than him destroying property, threatening people. These low life's were carrying weapons. There are witnesses who have testified to this. Those are the only things that are relevant here. 

Like you had that one loser who survived saying Rittenhouse was only crying because he's upset he got caught..LOL, you fool. Take those stupid oversized earrings out and get a job. He got caught? Theres video of him walking straight up to the police and saying he shot people! Its not like he ran away and hid and then was later apprehended.

 

100% he will get off and some people like Lebrun James will throw tantrums because they've been misled. But its a testimony to their own ignorance if they choose to do that. 

Why was he there?  The family that owns the property he was protecting said in testimony that they never told him to come and protect their property.

Why did he cross the state line with an AR-15?  It is illegal for him to transport an AR-15 across state lines. 

Why was a 17-year old running around with an AR-15 during a riot that had nothing to do with him, his family or his friends?

Rittenhouse testified that the first person he shot neither touched him nor had a weapon himself.  That guy grabbed the muzzle of Rittenhouse's gun in self-defense, and then was shot and killed.

Rittenhouse then shot at two other people...yeah these guys were idiots and one had a skateboard and the other a pistol, but Rittenhouse shot and killed two people.  He should go to jail, just like if one of them had assaulted or shot Rittenhouse...simple!  

At the very least, Rittenhouse should get jail time for transporting an AR-15 across state lines and at the very least should be charged with manslaughter.  This was not self-defense.  He put himself in jeopardy, transported an illegal firearm and discharged the weapon at not one, but three people.

I don't need the media to tell me that this is criminal!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Parsad said:

Why was he there?  The family that owns the property he was protecting said in testimony that they never told him to come and protect their property.

Why did he cross the state line with an AR-15?  It is illegal for him to transport an AR-15 across state lines. 

Why was a 17-year old running around with an AR-15 during a riot that had nothing to do with him, his family or his friends?

Rittenhouse testified that the first person he shot neither touched him nor had a weapon himself.  That guy grabbed the muzzle of Rittenhouse's gun in self-defense, and then was shot and killed.

Rittenhouse then shot at two other people...yeah these guys were idiots and one had a skateboard and the other a pistol, but Rittenhouse shot and killed two people.  He should go to jail, just like if one of them had assaulted or shot Rittenhouse...simple!  

At the very least, Rittenhouse should get jail time for transporting an AR-15 across state lines and at the very least should be charged with manslaughter.  This was not self-defense.  He put himself in jeopardy, transported an illegal firearm and discharged the weapon at not one, but three people.

I don't need the media to tell me that this is criminal!  Cheers!

Parsad - I respect you and the community here immensely, and I'm begging you to watch some of the testimonies on this trial with an open mind. I don't know how, but I've been sucked into this case and I have watched basically the entire trial from beginning to end. This kid's life is on the line and this has become way way too political. I would also mention that I am not pro-gun, and I don't see why anyone would ever need an AR-15.

With all of that said, I'll quickly go through some of your comments. Again, I'm not being combative or anything, I'm just genuinely scared this kid is about to get railroaded by our criminal justice system.

Why did he cross the state line with an AR-15?  It is illegal for him to transport an AR-15 across state lines. The gun never crossed state lines in this case, it was being kept at the house of one of his friends fathers who lived in Wisconsin. I'll admit that I'm not sure the legal relevance of crossing state lines (it seems to be a big talking point so it may be critical), but it seems it did not happen in this case based on testimony. I would also note that Rittenhouse's father lived in Kenosha and Rittenhouse worked there as well (he personally lived with his mom about 15-20 mins away, but technically still over state lines).

Why was a 17-year old running around with an AR-15 during a riot that had nothing to do with him, his family or his friends? This is something I agree with in the sense that the kid never should have been there. He had horrible horrible judgement in doing so. The reason he came is because, like I mentioned, he was connected to this community via his father and work and he was upset that it was being destroyed. There is pictures/evidence of him cleaning graffiti off a school in Kenosha the day this all happened.

Rittenhouse testified that the first person he shot neither touched him nor had a weapon himself.  That guy grabbed the muzzle of Rittenhouse's gun in self-defense, and then was shot and killed. If you watch the video, Rittenhouse is running away from Rosenbaum for quite a long time. While Rittenhouse is running with his back to the situation, a man that Rosenbaum was with all night shot off a gun into the air. As you can imagine, this likely terrified Rittenhouse. At one point during the encounter (about a 20 yard gap between the two of them) Rittenhouse turned around and pointed his gun at Rosenbaum trying to get him to stop chasing. Rosenbaum yelled something along the lines of "fuck you die" and continued forward, eventually grabbing his gun. I would also note that there were multiple witnesses who said that earlier in the night Rosenbaum told Rittenhouse that if he caught him alone that night he would "fucking kill him". He also mentioned something about cutting his heart out and eating it. Let's keep in mind that this is also a 36 year old man chasing after a 17 year old - I would have been scared too.

Rittenhouse then shot at two other people...yeah these guys were idiots and one had a skateboard and the other a pistol, but Rittenhouse shot and killed two people.  He should go to jail, just like if one of them had assaulted or shot Rittenhouse...simple!  

Once Rosenbaum was shot everyone began chasing Rittenhouse because he was an "active shooter". Given the above, I think theres a reasonable argument otherwise, but even still these people should not have been chasing him as vigilantes (this is exactly what people are upset that Rittenhouse was doing). He was eventually hit in the head with a rock, and then fell to the ground from almost passing out. At this point, everyone is yelling "cranium that boy" and "get him/kill him". While on the ground he was hit with a skateboard and someone tried grabbing his gun from him. He shoots this first person, and then a second person who was also feet away from Rittenhouse with his gun out puts his hands up. Rittenhouse drops his gun, then the second person steps towards him and points his gun at him again (this was admitted by the second person under oath). Once the gun is re-pointed at Rittenhouse, that is when he shoots. 

It was nice to see Bill Ackman tweet what he did. When you hear the facts of this case it really is not open and shut like the media is making it out to be. I'm totally fine with people coming to their own conclusions on the case, but I just think it's incredibly important to have the facts here. People are getting dangerously close to trial by media and it's not good for our society in any way shape or form.

Edited by widenthemoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - I can't seem to edit my post, but to add why he was there - there was a car dealership that asked his friends to protect the lot. The owner testified under oath that is not true, but quite frankly if you take the time to watch the testimony in full it is clear he is lying to avoid being sued. Everyone else under oath testified they were asked to be there. They also were given a key by the owner which is how they were able to get in/out of the building all night. There is also a picture of one of the owners smiling with Rittenhouse and the others right before the night starts with all of their guns out at the lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, widenthemoat said:

Once Rosenbaum was shot everyone began chasing Rittenhouse because he was an "active shooter".

 

That's the thing.  The next school shooter will say that he acted in self defense when bystanders acted to disarm him. 

Let's say a guy is robbing a liquor store and I try to disarm him so he shoots me in "self defense".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

 

That's the thing.  The next school shooter will say that he acted in self defense when bystanders acted to disarm him. 

Let's say a guy is robbing a liquor store and I try to disarm him so he shoots me in "self defense".

Completely agree with that - I believe you lose your right to self defense if you provoke the attack unless you retreat in good faith. In the Rittenhouse example it’s entirely possible the first shooting wasn’t illegal. If the jury decides it was illegal, it still appears he retreated in good faith regarding the other two shootings. Let me know your thoughts, I like hearing the other side here so I can make a better judgment call. I’ve included the Wisconsin statues on self defense below. 
 

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2019/chapter-939/section-939-48/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, widenthemoat said:

Completely agree with that - I believe you lose your right to self defense if you provoke the attack unless you retreat in good faith. In the Rittenhouse example it’s entirely possible the first shooting wasn’t illegal. If the jury decides it was illegal, it still appears he retreated in good faith regarding the other two shootings. Let me know your thoughts, I like hearing the other side here so I can make a better judgment call. I’ve included the Wisconsin statues on self defense below. 
 

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2019/chapter-939/section-939-48/

 

The fact that he was running away and towards the police does change everything.  This was not a kill crazy rampage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It remains only a question of whether deadly force was justified. 

In my court I would rule that the guy who pointed the handgun at him had it coming (and he survived). 

As for the other two, I wouldn't want to rule that you can kill anyone who reaches for your gun and that deadly force is justified in any street brawl.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced the letter of the law works in favor of the defense here:

1. Has Rittenhouse presented evidence that he was facing imminent death? 

2.  Evidence of great bodily harm? 

He needs to show that he acted reasonably.  One of these guys was shot FOUR TIMES.  Was the guy going to kill Rittenhouse or harm him greatly if he shot him once?  Was he still coming at him after the first shot?

 

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2019/chapter-939/section-939-48/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is video footage of the attack, so it’s really going to be up to the jury if they think Rosenbaum was going to cause imminent death or great bodily harm. I suggest taking a look at the video if you haven’t yet. There are a few, and the drone videos have the best views in my opinion. It’s definitely open to interpretation. I think his statement earlier in the night saying he would kill him if he caught him alone is very beneficial to the defense. Rosenbaums friend firing a gun while Rittenhouse was being chased also helps the defense case. The four shots Rittenhouse fired were all at once at extremely close range and it all happened in about a split second, it wasn’t like he shot, thought about it, and shot again. But you’re right, the four shots have been pointed out by the prosecution and it doesn’t help their case. There is a ton of different things to weigh here. The prosecution has also hammered home your point about why bring a gun if you can’t use it to defend property? The defense has basically said it is a deterrent, but he had no plans of shooting someone to defend property. It seems everyone in the court room is in agreement that it is not self defense to protect property. 
 

Another thing that was rather unbelievable. The person who was shot at and not killed is a paramedic. He testified under oath that Rittenhouse being hit in the head with a skateboard was deadly force. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, all reasons not to carry a semi auto rifle to a protest when you have nothing yourself to protest except the protest itself.  Then the protestors who hate your counterprotest then mob you, you panic and kill two people and possibly go away for the rest of your life.

Best case, you are acquitted and at least 1/2 the country thinks you're a murderer so life will never be normal for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

It must be a reasonable belief.

An unarmed man you've already shot once is not a reasonable threat.

So you can't keep pulling the trigger.

 

That’s a reasonable argument, and probably the best chance the prosecution has. Thanks for keeping an open mind on everything. I think it’s fair to agree that is not as open and shut as the media has pushed though? I think the jury will spend a considerable amount of time thinking about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Anyways, all reasons not to carry a semi auto rifle to a protest when you have nothing yourself to protest except the protest itself.  Then the protestors who hate your counterprotest then mob you, you panic and kill two people and possibly go away for the rest of your life.

Best case, you are acquitted and at least 1/2 the country thinks you're a murderer so life will never be normal for you.

No disagreement here on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats unfortunate is the media influence here and how like many other things, the narrative really determines everything. I remember debating with people during COVID about how one should approach things. And I consistently was told that my approach was selfish and that only caring about myself and friends/family was inconsiderate. Yet, consistently we've seen the same bleeding hearts shit on others without a thought. Send inflation packages that effect the poor straight to their front door simply because they couldn't stand Trumps personality. Even double down on things that clearly only had selfish motives. Here....look at this. Would I ever do what Kyle Rittenhouse did? Absolutely fuckin not. I'd most likely pack up my shit and take my family to a resort somewhere hours away or go on a road trip with my family. In my most patriotic and local pride moment maybe I'd send my family away and stay back, in my own house, with my guns. Am I a coward, IDK, dont care. Am I just smart? IDK. dont care. Selfish or selfless? Dont know, dont care. You can say Kyle was looking for trouble...maybe thats true. You can also say that maybe he had some sense of loyalty to the neighborhood. Maybe he was unduly influenced by friends and family and his sense of needing to do something was derived from that. Again, who knows. But its all going to come down to the narrative and perspective. And again, like with being a submissive little bitch to your local politicians during covid, I ask...whats the risk/reward and whats the alternative and why do what you do? The reasons may make sense to some, but to others they dont, and ultimately your fate may rest in the hands of someone with a different perspective. 

 

That said, I'm glad the loser 36 year old mouthing off and threatening to kill a teenager ended up reaping what he sowed. Did he not have a job or something? I would bet not, or at least not a good one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newly released documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal. See those documents here.

 

 

Theres that too. Maybe a thank you Kyle is in order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Newly released documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal. See those documents here.

 

 

Theres that too. Maybe a thank you Kyle is in order. 

 

If he goes to prison he'll be treated well for that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2021 at 6:37 AM, widenthemoat said:

Parsad - I respect you and the community here immensely, and I'm begging you to watch some of the testimonies on this trial with an open mind. I don't know how, but I've been sucked into this case and I have watched basically the entire trial from beginning to end. This kid's life is on the line and this has become way way too political. I would also mention that I am not pro-gun, and I don't see why anyone would ever need an AR-15.

With all of that said, I'll quickly go through some of your comments. Again, I'm not being combative or anything, I'm just genuinely scared this kid is about to get railroaded by our criminal justice system.

Why did he cross the state line with an AR-15?  It is illegal for him to transport an AR-15 across state lines. The gun never crossed state lines in this case, it was being kept at the house of one of his friends fathers who lived in Wisconsin. I'll admit that I'm not sure the legal relevance of crossing state lines (it seems to be a big talking point so it may be critical), but it seems it did not happen in this case based on testimony. I would also note that Rittenhouse's father lived in Kenosha and Rittenhouse worked there as well (he personally lived with his mom about 15-20 mins away, but technically still over state lines).

Why was a 17-year old running around with an AR-15 during a riot that had nothing to do with him, his family or his friends? This is something I agree with in the sense that the kid never should have been there. He had horrible horrible judgement in doing so. The reason he came is because, like I mentioned, he was connected to this community via his father and work and he was upset that it was being destroyed. There is pictures/evidence of him cleaning graffiti off a school in Kenosha the day this all happened.

Rittenhouse testified that the first person he shot neither touched him nor had a weapon himself.  That guy grabbed the muzzle of Rittenhouse's gun in self-defense, and then was shot and killed. If you watch the video, Rittenhouse is running away from Rosenbaum for quite a long time. While Rittenhouse is running with his back to the situation, a man that Rosenbaum was with all night shot off a gun into the air. As you can imagine, this likely terrified Rittenhouse. At one point during the encounter (about a 20 yard gap between the two of them) Rittenhouse turned around and pointed his gun at Rosenbaum trying to get him to stop chasing. Rosenbaum yelled something along the lines of "fuck you die" and continued forward, eventually grabbing his gun. I would also note that there were multiple witnesses who said that earlier in the night Rosenbaum told Rittenhouse that if he caught him alone that night he would "fucking kill him". He also mentioned something about cutting his heart out and eating it. Let's keep in mind that this is also a 36 year old man chasing after a 17 year old - I would have been scared too.

Rittenhouse then shot at two other people...yeah these guys were idiots and one had a skateboard and the other a pistol, but Rittenhouse shot and killed two people.  He should go to jail, just like if one of them had assaulted or shot Rittenhouse...simple!  

Once Rosenbaum was shot everyone began chasing Rittenhouse because he was an "active shooter". Given the above, I think theres a reasonable argument otherwise, but even still these people should not have been chasing him as vigilantes (this is exactly what people are upset that Rittenhouse was doing). He was eventually hit in the head with a rock, and then fell to the ground from almost passing out. At this point, everyone is yelling "cranium that boy" and "get him/kill him". While on the ground he was hit with a skateboard and someone tried grabbing his gun from him. He shoots this first person, and then a second person who was also feet away from Rittenhouse with his gun out puts his hands up. Rittenhouse drops his gun, then the second person steps towards him and points his gun at him again (this was admitted by the second person under oath). Once the gun is re-pointed at Rittenhouse, that is when he shoots. 

It was nice to see Bill Ackman tweet what he did. When you hear the facts of this case it really is not open and shut like the media is making it out to be. I'm totally fine with people coming to their own conclusions on the case, but I just think it's incredibly important to have the facts here. People are getting dangerously close to trial by media and it's not good for our society in any way shape or form.

Hi Widen,

I don't disagree with you on any of the points.  I certainly don't think Rittenhouse deserves a life sentence.  That being said, I think he deserves some sort of sentence...he killed two people and injured a third. 

Fearful or not, he was in a location where riots were taking place and he was carrying a semi-automatic rifle...at 17 years old.  Stupidity deserves some sort of punishment if it got 2 people killed.  What if the same thing happened in a school or workplace?  Would the two offenders, regardless of age and aggression, deserve to be shot and killed?

Rittenhouse should go to prison.  I'll leave the sentence (if they find him guilty) to the courts.  But there is no rational way of explaining all of his behavior away as self-defense or even justified homicide.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...