Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty

Options
1313234363761

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Executed?

    man face down on the ground and shot in the back , despite claims of he lunged for the gun from 4/5 feet away ,

    How long would his arms have to reach for the gun , rosenbaum was only 5"2



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,262 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997



    This could have been an interesting discussion. Instead its been downed out in disinformation. Since its not been infracted, you have to assume that the site boards, is ok with it. As its publishing it. Same with some of the Boards alternative sites that sprung up when boards was down. They are obviously pro the conspiracies they allow run rampant on their sites. Also making it impossible to have a rational discussion.

    I didn't realize Rittenhouse was running away with his back to the first guy, only turning and shooting at the last minute. Only on seeing that did the wounds and powder burns make sense. I also didn't realize how common AR15 and similar are in the states and that large groups have been bringing them to protests, or that the law was changed after the capital riots.

    Haven't trust mainstream media for a longtime. I fact check most of the stuff I read in the media these days.

    That said the ignore function is vital here. Stops all the trolling and baiting from triggering people. The old site functionality was better in this though unsurprisingly.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,262 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997



    Its been turned into a political football. If there was a change for the laws and society in the US to have some self reflection and perhaps change. Its all gone with all the disinformation and political grandstanding drowning everything out.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling



    The other video that wasn't allowed to be submitted as evidence was rittenhouse seeing a black person coming out of pharmacy , Rittenhouse decided the person was shoplifting .

    I believe it's the same one which he thinks they should be allowed to shoot shoplifters

    Post edited by Gatling on


  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    You know fcuking well that Rosenbaum wasn't face down on the ground when shot. Off ta fcuk with ya.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    Honestly. It's like you come here, get schooled, admit you were wrong, and then disappear into some freaky little bubble on the internet somewhere to get reprogrammed before you come back to start spouting the same easily disprovable pile of shite again.  😂😂😂

    Rosenbaum was not face down on the floor when he was shot.

    Rosenbaum is on video lunging for the gun.

    A prosecution witness testified that Rosenbaum lunged for the gun.

    Rosenbaum was not 5'2".

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I wonder if he is acquitted will there be much unrest in America.


    I suspect there will be certain groups who will be licking their lips at the prospect of a chance to riot and loot in the name of social justice.



  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭bewareofthedog


    Tough to read the absolute drivel over the last few pages. How hard is it to watch the raw footage of events yourself and use that to make a judgement on what happened instead of relying on the biased misinformation you get from social media.

    At least the trial is coming to an end now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    Jesus, when I was living in South Lake Tahoe I was able to flit between California/Nevada daily, and I was a foreigner. The only times you'd even notice you were crossing the state line was a) if the tram was crossing at the same time and they'd ding the bell twice and shout "Stateline" or b) after 2am when California closed and Nevada was still in full flow. Quite significant me arse.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,541 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    The expect also said burns were consistent with grabbing the barrel.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,316 ✭✭✭mikethecop


    caught in yet another lie , gatling


    how manys that now



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Watch the drone footage ,

    rosenbaum runs towards Rittenhouse ,

    Rittenhouse turned and shot him in the pelvis he went straight down ,the last shot was to his back,it wasn't momentum ,he was down after the first shot ,

    Watch the video



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,053 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams




  • Registered Users Posts: 21,053 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams




  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭ATR72


    Wasn't allowed because the prosecution can't confirm beyond reasonable doubt that it was him saying it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭ATR72


    Camera angles can be misleading. The video used by the prosecution appears to show Rosenbaum not grabbing the barrel but eye witness testimony and coronor report show that is wrong. That's why relying solely on video evidence from a distance is a bad idea.



  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭ATR72


    It's not. Crossing state lines with a gun is not illegal if you're complying with local laws. Rittenhouse was in legal possession of the weapon in both Wisconsin and Illinois.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    I believe it's more they were afraid of him being labelled as someone who thinks he should have the ability to shoot people ,

    Shooting shoplifters ,

    Why



  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭ATR72


    Just to show how bad this prosecution was. They asked Kyle why he didn't buy a pistol instead of rifle and was told that it was illegal by Kyle himself. And he said that warning shots should have been used. Also illegal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭ATR72


    No, it was because they couldn't verify the voice on the video.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    I mean they closed with "don't we all take a beating some time?" suggesting that Rittenhouse should have just let Rosenbaum do whatever he was planning to do. Which doesn't hold up when a provably unstable, violent, aggressive man attacks a teenage boy, but rises to a whole new level when you consider things like domestic violence and so on.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That's fair enough chief. You've already stated you don't care what ANYONE thinks. I didn't think I was an exception.

    Strange behaviour on a discussion board in fairness. Why discuss anything if others opinions are of no bearing? Seems like doing that would be you treating this as some sounding board where you just shout out lies or your misinformed opinion as fact for no reason but to annoy people who genuinely are interested and want to discuss the topic.

    I'd rather people didn't care what I had to say because of their own prejudice.

    That's on them.

    It's a lot better than people not believing what YOU say because of your demonstrable history of being wrong/lying and not admitting to it.

    That's on you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭sekiro


    To be fair the prosecution is tasked with securing a guilty verdict so you have to see whatever they say in that context. They can't really just close with "honestly just find him not guilty, we have nothing" if they want to continue working in that job.

    I would agree that this case might set a bad example where a "guilty" verdict really does imply that if you are caught up in one of these protests it's better to just curl up in a ball and hope the beating isn't too severe.

    If this were 3 Irish guys with those exact criminal records attacking some young lad in Dublin after a night out then I don't really know what we'd be saying. Obviously weapons are not legal here but what if the young guy was out looking for trouble anyway and two of his attackers fell awkwardly and died with the 3rd being badly injured. I know for sure we wouldn't be talking about white supremacy and wouldn't be saying "oh he's come up from Cork looking for trouble". I expect you would be convicted of something if you killed someone in a similar manner to what went on here?

    Since we seem to be importing more and more of this stuff from America it is maybe concerning to see how this is all playing out.



  • Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭sekiro


    I think the idea of the "crossing state lines" is really to just say that he had no business being there?

    On the other hand it could also be an acknowledgement that the know for sure he acted in self-defense but had hoped that transporting the gun from one state to another would be illegal so he would still have to go to jail. That's kind of bad though as it implies the motive for wanting a conviction is just because he dared to oppose the rioters.

    I would say it's probably true that he had no business being there. I'd guess that he definitely regrets going there that night.

    From the footage and the evidence we've seen though I think if the possession of the gun is all legal and fine then he killed those two and injured the other in self-defense and if that's legal in the US then he should be found not guilty.

    Definitely would not like to see similar cases and circumstances coming up over here.



  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭ATR72


    Weapons are not legal here so it's hard to compare but let's say that young lad was being chased by 3 others who wanted to do harm and he punched one of his attackers. That lad then dies. Would you think it is okay to convict anyone of just defending themselves? I wouldn't but of course it would happen here and they would get a harsh sentence compared to his attackers who would get a slap on the wrist.



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    I agree with much of that except one point. The prosecutions job is not to secure a guilty verdict—it's to deliver justice. And I don't think this would even have gone to trial if it weren't politicised.

    I hope Binger will get sanctioned for some of the egregious errors he's made in this case.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭sekiro


    I think people should definitely be allowed to defend themselves. I would draw a line where let's say someone is attacked and they go on to beat their attacker to death. Enough force to repel the attack should be allowed and if death is cause accidentally then OK but if they repel the attack and then go on to kill the attacker then I'd see that as a huge problem.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    If Rosenbaum hadn’t pulled a machete on Rittenhouse he wouldn’t have had to shoot him.


    Am I doing this right?



  • Registered Users Posts: 468 ✭✭Shao Kahn


    They should really re-name it sociopathic justice.

    Would make a whole lot more sense, when you look at some of the nutballs involved. 🤣

    Didn't they even say Rosenbum had anti-social personality disorder? Color me surprised.

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I suppose going by the logic of the prosecution, it depends why that one young lad was there in the first place. If he was there to oppose something then he automatically incites the other 3 to attack him and should have just taken his beating like a good lad. On it's own it's self-defence, sure, but in the wider context it should matter, according to the prosecution, why he was there in the first place.

    Yes the prosecution inferred yesterday in closing statements that Rittenhouse should have taken a beating because he incited the people to attack him. "It is imminent threat of death or bodily harm[that is a defence for killing someone], where is that when you get a couple of scrapes. Everybody takes a beating sometime, right?" was the exact quote.

    Rittenhouse may have 'only' got a beating, but he may also have been 'craniumed' as was heard being shouted in some of the videos. "Cranium that boy, he just shot a man"



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement