Current Events > Rittenhouse takes the stand.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The video shows Rosenbaum isn't a threat and didn't attack Kyle. He had no right to shoot him.

Dude is a piece of shit, I think it's only a matter of time before he slips up and perjurs himself.

CoasterFan1990 posted...

The video shows Rosenbaum isn't a threat and didn't attack Kyle. He had no right to shoot him.

Dude is a piece of shit, I think it's only a matter of time before he slips up and perjurs himself.

Imagine lying about a video that literally anyone can easily watch.

---

CobraGT posted...

I read a CBS summary. KR says, "I did nothing wrong, I defended myself." For me this is enough to convict him: his 'I defended myself' is fine. It is the 'I did nothing wrong.' When Kyle Rittenhouse said "I did nothing wrong ... ", he is putting himself above the law.

I hope youre never a juror. You could potientally ruin someones life


---

look at this Q-esque conspiracy mongering
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1458522166564098056?t=77lGaLbzFNRNsGp55-1N0g&s=19

---

InfinityMonster posted...

That's irrelevant since the evidence shows he didn't attack, provoke or antognize anybody and most people there had guns.

Since vigilantism is a crime basically everywhere, yeah I'd say it's relevant. His mere presence is antagonistic, openly carrying at a volatile situation and playing cop when he has no right or authority to do so. Oh but that's right, he went down to help people. The same guy that wants to shoot shoplifters lol

InfinityMonster posted...

He was still attacked unprovoked, which doesn't invalidate self-defense. Anybody arguing against it is arguing that he should have just accepted getting attacked.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think most people are saying you don't get to go play Punisher and then say "lol self defense" when you shoot alleged criminals that don't care for your presence and walk away. Again, that sets an absolutely insane precedent.
Fact is he had no business or authority being there, while he cannot control how people act in a situation he still created the situation.

"I committed this crime because I put myself in considerable danger while committing another crime" wtf lol, that's a shit defense and that's what it comes down to

---

PoundGarden posted...

Since vigilantism is a crime basically everywhere, yeah I'd say it's relevant. His mere presence is antagonistic, openly carrying at a volatile situation and playing cop when he has no right or authority to do so. Oh but that's right, he went down to help people. The same guy that wants to shoot shoplifters lol

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think most people are saying you don't get to go play Punisher and then say "lol self defense" when you shoot alleged criminals that don't care for your presence and walk away. Again, that sets an absolutely insane precedent.
Fact is he had no business or authority being there, while he cannot control how people act in a situation he still created the situation.

"I committed this crime because I put myself in considerable danger while committing another crime" wtf lol

Walking around with a gun in an open carry state is not illegal, nor is it called vigilantism nor can you attack someone for it.

That's ignoring that there's no evidence Rosenbaum was scared of the gun or did what he did in any attempt to somehow stop him or to save everybody or something. No one has testified that they were scared or bothered because he had a gun.

Going around asking people if they need medical attention is not being a vigilante. Having a gun does not turn you into a vigilante since multiple people testified almost everybody there was carrying a gun, even actual medics.

If you approach someone and attack them in an attempt to disarm them in a open carry state, you will be shot and it will be self-defense.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Not exactly relevant to the case, is it? He shot people who aggressively assaulted him, not shoplifters.

Yeah, can't possibly see how someone wishing they had their gun to fatally shoot shoplifters vigilante justice style is relevant when they brought a gun to protests so they could shoot people vigilante justice style.

---

mybbqrules posted...

when they brought a gun to protests so they could shoot people vigilante justice style.

Bruh he was putting out fires, offering medical attention, and cleaning graffiti.

He brought the gun in case he needed to defend himself. Which he did.

---

mybbqrules posted...

Yeah, can't possibly see how someone wishing they had their gun to fatally shoot shoplifters vigilante justice style is relevant when they brought a gun to protests so they could shoot people vigilante justice style.

Good thing this isn't what happened.

---

InfinityMonster posted...

Walking around with a gun in an open carry state is not illegal, nor is it called vigilantism nor can you attack someone for it.

I like how you left out it was a protest/riot that he went pretty far out of his way to attend to, again, protect property that wasn't his. With a gum he shouldn't have had in a state he did not reside. Literal vigilantism.

InfinityMonster posted...

That's ignoring that there's no evidence Rosenbaum was scared of the gun or did what he did in any attempt to somehow stop him or to save everybody or something. No one has testified that they were scared or bothered because he had a gun.

A paramedic literally testified he thought Kyle was an active shooter.

InfinityMonster posted...

Going around asking people if they need medical attention is not being a vigilante. Having a gun does not turn you into a vigilante since multiple people testified almost everybody there was carrying a gun, even actual medics.

Sure. Going there to protect property that's not yours however is. And cut the BS, he was in no way qualified or trained to administer medical aid of any value.

InfinityMonster posted...

If you approach someone and attack them in an attempt to disarm them in a open carry state, you will be shot and it will be self-defense.

Yeah no. Shooting someone has a LOT of qualifiers. If it was that simple, we probably wouldn't be watching someone on trial for doing just that. It can be reasonably argued people were trying to disarm some idiot at a riot with a rifle they didn't know nor did they know his intentions.

---

I'm seeing a LOT of hypocrisy here. Can't accuse one side of "feels over reals" while simultaneously doing the same thing.

---

totalnerdken posted...

Prove what you said. The prosecutor wasn't able to prove this after badgering Kyle. Tell me how you know for sure that Kyle brought it so he can shoot people.

> makes comments about wanting to shoot looters/shoplifters

> goes to event with looters and shoplifters and ends up shooting people

"Nope that's irrelevant!"

Holy fuck this isn't that hard lol. May not prove it but sure as fuck looks really, really bad. Like if I'd posted about wanting to run people over with my car then days later did just that and said it was an accident. What a coincidence right

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Weird, didnt know:
a) illegal immigration was a part of this trial
b) that an illegal immigrant shot multiple people, killing multiple people, is on trial

Oh wait, they arent? Then shut the fuck up.

Weird how I never said it wasnt a traumatic event for Kyle. Maybe continue reading.

This post just switched my entire stance on the situation

AssultTank posted...

Honestly, the distance he had to travel is less than I used to travel for work every day. And all mine was still in Atlanta...

That is a very weak argument. For one it's about a 30-40 minute drive from Antioch to Kenosha, which isn't an insignificant drive. He wasn't on his way home from school and decided to take a detour or some shit. He deliberately went out of his way to be at this protest.

And two, despite my first rebuttal it doesn't even fucking matter how long or how far away he traveled to be at the protest. He still had no fucking business being there with an illegally acquired gun. There's no arguing that.


---

AssultTank posted...

The crime he committed was having the gun illegally. That doesn't invalidate his right to self defense.

Doesn't absolve him from consequences for killing someone in a situation that never would have existed had he not broken the law in the first place. Astonishing how the right doesn't apply that train of thought in this case.

AssultTank posted...

Honestly, the distance he had to travel is less than I used to travel for work every day. And all mine was still in Atlanta...

The point that you're ignoring is that this was nowhere near him nor were those people an immediate threat to him. He went out of his way to play hero

AssultTank posted...

He didn't threaten anyone with it (Per testimony given by prosecution witnesses) until he was attacked. He sought to avoid the confrontation (Per testimony given by prosecution witnesses and the videos of the night) and only fired once he was cornered and still in danger (Per testimony given by prosecution witnesses and videos of the night).

Literally none of that is vigilantism. Literally none of that is unreasonable use of force.

The act itself was vigilantism. Did he or did he not go there to protect property that was not his? Holy shit.

AssultTank posted...

I think you need to rewatch the whole trial without your bias.

I think you need to better understand the definition of crimes, because clearly you don't. You're insinuating teenagers can run around with guns protecting the neighborhood but it's not vigilantism until someone gets attacked lmao. Again, the act itself is a crime. Again:

"I committed this crime because I put myself in considerable danger while committing another crime" is not a valid defense for homicide nor does it qualify as self defense. Which is why there's even a trial. If it was as simple as you Rittenhouse fans make it out to be, why is this even a discussion?

---

How come the moderators have been so active in these rottenhouse topics, and all of them or at least most of them being strongly pro-rittenhouse?

there is more moderator activity in this weeks rottenhouse topics than in all of CE for an entire month.

---

This topic is terrifying.

we have a live trial going on with pretty solid evidence and testimony and we still have people who want to dismiss self defense, pretend the 3 individuals who were shot were just innocent protestors, who want this guy murked unsuspectingly. All because he isnt part of their political spectrum.

we want justice! We want fair and equitable due process!

here it is.

no not like this!

---

totalnerdken posted...

That doesn't show his intent. You're reaching.

"Prior comments about wanting to shoot people over petty crimes are irrelevant in a murder trial where people were shot by a guy over petty crimes"

CE gonna CE

totalnerdken posted...

Apperently it is pretty hard, because the prosecutor wasn't even able to prove that. If he couldn't do it, why do you still insist that it's true?

It's almost as if the judge has demonstrated clear bias from the start and has handicapped the prosecution to the point of almost guaranteeing a mistrial

---

PoundGarden posted...

"Prior comments about wanting to shoot people over petty crimes are irrelevant in a murder trial where people were shot by a guy over petty crimes"

CE gonna CE

It's almost as if the judge has demonstrated clear bias from the start and has handicapped the prosecution to the point of almost guaranteeing a mistrial

Lmao

---

PoundGarden posted...

people were shot by a guy over petty crimes"

I don't think hitting somebody with a skateboard like it's a club is a "petty crime" but alright.

---

chrono625 posted...

This topic is terrifying.

we have a live trial going on with pretty solid evidence and testimony and we still have people who want to dismiss self defense

"Self defense" while committing a crime drastically changes things and you know it.

chrono625 posted...

pretend the 3 individuals who were shot were just innocent protestors,

Criminal history does not make it ok to kill people. Especially when said criminal history isn't known until after the fact

chrono625 posted...

All because he isnt part of their political spectrum.

Or we think letting a teenager who broke firearm laws and killed multiple people walk sets a horrible precedent. I love guns, and bullshit like what Kyle did goes against everything responsible gun owners believe in.

Sorry I don't want to live in a world where teenagers with semi automatic rifles get to play cop is normalized

---

PoundGarden posted...

It's almost as if the judge has demonstrated clear bias from the start and has handicapped the prosecution to the point of almost guaranteeing a mistrial

Do you know what a mistrial is? At this point I'd assume the prosecution is basically praying for a mistrial so they can have a do over rather than having this go to the jury.

---

PoundGarden posted...

I like how you left out it was a protest/riot that he went pretty far out of his way to attend to, again, protect property that wasn't his. With a gum he shouldn't have had in a state he did not reside. Literal vigilantism.

A paramedic literally testified he thought Kyle was an active shooter.

Sure. Going there to protect property that's not yours however is. And cut the BS, he was in no way qualified or trained to administer medical aid of any value.

Yeah no. Shooting someone has a LOT of qualifiers. If it was that simple, we probably wouldn't be watching someone on trial for doing just that. It can be reasonably argued people were trying to disarm some idiot at a riot with a rifle they didn't know nor did they know his intentions.

He traveled 20 miles. That's like going from the bottom of Manhattan to the top. It's irrelevant.

That does not equal vigilantism nor is there any law banning him being there.

He was never thought of as active shooter till he shot Rosenbaum and that was because Rosenbaum ambushed him and attacked him.

The trial is going nowhere because the prosecution has nothing. If they didn't do a trial, people would have lost their shit. In reality, he would have plead guilty to the gun charges and this would have been over long ago. It's clear to anybody watching it's just a waste of time and money.

There's no proof anybody thought they were theatened and decided to disarm him. This is especially given that the trial showed that everybody there was armed.

You're reaching and you know it. At least watch the fucking trial.

---

Wait he was crying?

what happen to his BAR, OK SIGN picture SMILING HAPPY?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I don't think hitting somebody with a skateboard like it's a club is a "petty crime" but alright.

I like how you left out that guy hit him with a skateboard after Kyle just killed somebody. Now that guy, he would have a solid argument for self defense.

---

AssultTank posted...

And remember, he worked in the area where the protests occurred.

A quick search brought up nothing for me about his employment. All I can find is that he was part of a police cadet program and that he responded to a call from a dealership to be there.

I haven't watched the testimony since I've been at work all day, so i wouldn't know if he elaborated on that (and it was verified) today.

Regardless....
AssultTank posted...

He was a member of that community, with a stake in making sure it remained a healthy community. It's not like he went somewhere he had never been before. He went there all the time. 30-40 minutes is honestly not that far to go. Doesn't even get you halfway across the city of Atlanta most days.

Again, how far he had to travel doesn't matter if he had no business being there in the first place. I live 5 minutes from the school I teach at, but I wouldn't drive over there with a gun even if I heard that my classroom was being looted. That's what insurance and the police are for. It was a fucking stupid decision by Rittenhouse to go to those protests and it was a crime to arm himself while there.


---

ZMythos posted...

A quick search brought up nothing for me about his employment. All I can find is that he was part of a police cadet program and that he responded to a call from a dealership to be there.

I haven't watched the testimony since I've been at work all day, so i wouldn't know if he elaborated on that (and it was verified) today.

Regardless....

Again, how far he had to travel doesn't matter if he had no business being there in the first place. I live 5 minutes from the school I teach at, but I wouldn't drive over there with a gun even if I heard that my classroom was being looted. That's what insurance and the police are for. It was a fucking stupid decision by Rittenhouse to go to those protests and it was a crime to arm himself while there.

All of this is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he shouldn't have gone. He did and was attacked completely unprovoked and responded by shooting the attacker.

This shouldn't be difficult for a teacher to understand.

---

InfinityMonster posted...

He traveled 20 miles. That's like going from the bottom of Manhattan to the top. It's irrelevant.

That does not equal vigilantism nor is there any law banning him being there.

He was never thought of as active shooter till he shot Rosenbaum and that was because Rosenbaum ambushed him and attacked him.

The trial is going nowhere because the prosecution has nothing. If they didn't do a trial, people would have lost their shit. In reality, he would have plead guilty to the gun charges and this would have been over long ago. It's clear to anybody watching it's just a waste of time and money.

There's no proof anybody thought they were theatened and decided to disarm him. This is especially given that the trial showed that everybody there was armed.

You're reaching and you know it. At least watch the fucking trial.

Rosenbaum didn't attack him, throwing a plastic bag at Kyle isn't attacking him.

CoasterFan1990 posted...

Rosenbaum didn't attack him, throwing a plastic bag at Kyle isn't attacking him.

Amazing. It's like you have no idea what's going on but decided to comment any way.

---

AssultTank posted...

And you're ignoring that the guy Kyle killed attacked him first, chased him down, cornered him, and kept trying to attack him. He had also threatened Kyle specifically on at least two separate occasions that night.

I completely agree, but that doesn't mean he can't defend himself if someone attacks him.

Throwing a plastic bag isn't attacking, he had his hands up when Kyle pointed the gun at him. The video shows that

InfinityMonster posted...

Amazing. It's like you have no idea what's going on but decided to comment any way.

I've been watching the trial on and off, I've seen the videos.

PoundGarden posted...

"Self defense" while committing a crime drastically changes things and you know it.

Criminal history does not make it ok to kill people. Especially when said criminal history isn't known until after the fact

Or we think letting a teenager who broke firearm laws and killed multiple people walk sets a horrible precedent. I love guns, and bullshit like what Kyle did goes against everything responsible gun owners believe in.

Sorry I don't want to live in a world where teenagers with semi automatic rifles get to play cop is normalized

what crime was he committing? Possessing an illegal firearm? Its been established that is completely irrelevant when it comes to self defense when facing imminent danger. The current trial is for murder. If they want to try him for that then go ahead.

you dont lose that right because of a different law.

youre right - it doesnt matter. But thats why a defense attorney worth his salt can win a case by proving the victims werent there peacefully protesting and were agitators. Criminal history is important in certain circumstances. Especially violent offenders.

you keep ignoring self defense. Youre being purposely obtuse. You claim you love guns, but he didnt use them for their purpose? What exactly is a firearms purpose if not for fucking self defense or hunting?


---

AssultTank posted...

Tell me you didn't watch anything the prosecution showed in court without telling me you didn't watch anything the prosecution showed in court.

Except I did watch videos they showed

CoasterFan1990 posted...

I've been watching the trial on and off, I've seen the videos.

CoasterFan1990 posted...

Except I did watch videos they showed

Clearly you didn't because your OP is completely wrong.

---

InfinityMonster posted...

Clearly you didn't because your OP is completely wrong.

That's your opinion

CoasterFan1990 posted...

That's your opinion

youre pretty much showing your hand to the table with your posts.

---

CoasterFan1990 posted...

That's your opinion

Uh no. They have clearly demonstrated in the trial that Rosenbaum cornered Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun and lunged at him. The bag is an irrelevant point that only people not paying attention would even bring up now.

---

PoundGarden posted...

I like how you left out that guy hit him with a skateboard after Kyle just killed somebody. Now that guy, he would have a solid argument for self defense.

He has a solid argument for self defense with the first guy, too, because he literally attacked Rittenhouse for no reason at all. That's what started the confrontation to begin with.

---