Mens Tennis Forums banner
141 - 160 of 299 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #141 ·
Just that it wasn't Rittenhouse who engaged first. Instead he tried to flee, just like Arbery. Prosecutor in the Arbery case stated that Arbery tried to flee, indicating he did not want to engage or have anything to do with the defendants. Same thing with Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum had no business/right to chase and attack him.

Rittenhouse's defense lawyer Mark Richards:
He chased him because he was carrying a gun and was seen as a threat.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
He chased him because he was carrying a gun and was seen as a threat.
Nothing of the kind was established throughout the course of the trial (as noted by Rittenhouse's defense lawyer).

There were many people carrying guns. That's allowed in Wisconsin. Rosenbaum is recorded on video interacting with a bunch of them in close range. No right to chase or attack them though. Same goes for the armed people. Rosenbaum (and the guy he was with Ziminski, who fired his gun first) were the ones to engage first.

Authorities initially charged Ziminski with disorderly conduct but then dismissed that and refiled it to include a more serious arson charge.

The initial criminal complaint alleged that Ziminski was “holding a black handgun” on video that night, “down at his side.”

The complaint describes how the Ziminskis were walking near a fire in the area of a gas station when his arm was seen “pointing upward.” The detective “observed a muzzle flash emit from the handgun and heard a gunshot at the same time.”

Both Ziminski and his wife admitted he fired a “warning shot” in the air, the complaint says. And he said the gun was stolen after the shootings.

Read the criminal complaint here.

After Rosenbaum’s shooting, Rittenhouse ran down the road and fell. He was then rushed by Anthony Huber, who struck him with a skateboard and tried to grab the gun, according to video and court testimony. Rittenhouse shot Huber. He then shot Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived, and who testified that he was advancing on Rittenhouse at close range, three to five feet, and pointed a gun at him when Rittenhouse shot him.

“Joshua Ziminski plays a central role in this scenario on August 25,” defense attorney Mark Richards said in court. “One, creating chaos and havoc with Mr. Rosenbaum, and two, more importantly, when we finally get to Car Source … Mr. Ziminski … fires the first shot that evening, behind Kyle Rittenhouse as he’s being chased by Mr. Rosenbaum.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
Did he deserve to get shot by Kittenhouse or get arrested by police for his felony?
Defense attorney: “You would agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse correct?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “Once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun, yes?

Grosskreutz: “No.”

Defense: “Sir, look…Does this look like right now your arm is being shot?”

Grosskreutz: “That looks like my bicep being vaporized yes.”

Defense: “It’s being vaporized because you’re pointing a gun directly at him, yes?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “When you’re standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air he never fired. Right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.”

Defense: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.”



Leg Thigh Player Sports Fun
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,221 Posts
I can. It was thrown out because the judge was clearly a fan of his. But you don't consider that.

He illegally possessed a gun he didn't own and used it. It's illegal in all 50 states. He got a break because he was a 17 year white boy.
Repeating the same falsehood over and over doesn’t make it true. He did not illegally possess a gun. The fact that you keep resorting to this lie to make your point shows how weak the “17 year old white boy” take is.

In fact, this whole thread is a good example of how divorced from reality the race-obsessed American left has become.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #145 ·
There were many people carrying guns. That's allowed in Wisconsin. Rosenbaum is recorded on video interacting with a bunch of them in close range. No right to chase or attack them though. Same goes for the armed people. Rosenbaum (and the guy he was with Ziminski, who fired his gun first) were the ones to engage first.

Kittenhouse was carrying a gun but also searching for trouble. He's a proven white supremo. The other were carrying guns out of self defense.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
Kittenhouse was carrying a gun but also searching for trouble. The other carrying guns were doing it for self defense.
That's just you making things up now. As we saw, that's not enough in the legal system. Again, the defense lawyer:

Ladies and gentlemen, you sat through almost 10 days of testimony. You’ve heard the openings, most of the closings. And I have yet to hear Mr. Binger explain why Joseph Rosenbaum had the right to chase my client.
What you claim was not established throughout the course of the trial.

--

Your Kangaroo court mindset is actually quite unnerving. Willing to sentence a person without actual evidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #147 ·
That's just you making things up now. As we saw, that's not enough in the legal system. Again, the defense lawyer:



What you claim was not established throughout the course of the trial.
Reread my post. He's a proven white supremo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
That's just you making things up now. As we saw, that's not enough in the legal system. Again, the defense lawyer:



What you claim was not established throughout the course of the trial.

--

Your Kangaroo court mindset is actually quite unnerving. Willing to sentence a person without actual evidence.
Your patience must be wearing thin at this point. How can you still do this? Amazing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
Reread my post. He's a proven white supremo.
Even this is questionable. But whether he was Hitler himself reincarnated, that's not what this case is about. It's about their actions; who came at who.

You're also missing (or ignoring) the bit about Rittenhouse fleeing and simultaneously chanting 'friendly, friendly, friendly'. On top of that you think this guy would be the first one a white supremacist would be going after:

Forehead Nose Cheek Lip Eyebrow


As I said above, you need to check your ethics. You're hoping a guy would be put behind bars just based on your personal opinion/dislike of him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #150 ·
Even this is questionable. But whether he was Hitler himself reincarnated, that's not what this case is about. It's about their actions; who came at who.

You're also missing (or ignoring) the bit about Rittenhouse fleeing and simultaneously chanting 'friendly, friendly, friendly'. On top of that you think this guy would be the first one a white supremacist would be going after:

View attachment 372543

As I said above, you need to check your ethics. You're hoping a guy would be put behind bars just based on your personal opinion/dislike of him.
There's a video of him with a *********** sign. So that makes him a troublemaker.

He should be in jail because he killed two people and maimed a third. He could've used a Pistol or a glock instead of an assault rifle which shows his intent was to create trouble and kill as many people as need be. The original intent wasn't self defense.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
There's a video of him with a *** sign. So that makes him a troublemaker.

He should be in jail because he killed two people and maimed a third. He could've used a Pistol or a glock instead of an assault rifle which shows his intent was to create trouble and kill people.
Don't know what the censored word is supposed to be.

The logic in the 2nd bit doesn't add up. Anyone carrying a rifle intends to kill people? I thought you having lived in America would be more familiar with their gun culture.

Need to repeat again, your ethics are very questionable. Hoping a guy would be sentenced without evidence just based on your personal dislike of his persona/background.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
There's a video of him with a *** sign. So that makes him a troublemaker.

He should be in jail because he killed two people and maimed a third. He could've used a Pistol or a glock instead of an assault rifle which shows his intent was to create trouble and kill as many people as need be. The original intent wasn't self defense.
you have no understanding of criminal law...court does not go by political rhetoric like you are spewing here..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #153 ·
Don't know what the censored word is supposed to be.

The logic in the 2nd bit doesn't add up. Anyone carrying a rifle intends to kill people? I thought you having lived in America would be more familiar with their gun culture.

Need to repeat again, you're ethics are very questionable. Hoping to sentence a guy without evidence just based on your personal dislike of his persona/background.
The type of weapon used shows intent. He was carrying an AR-15. Mass murderers use AR-15s, not for self defense. He was 17 at the time, high on adrenaline. It wouldn't be a good weapon to use in a close combat self defense scenario anyway so why use that?

Just to exaggerate my point - You can't claim self defense if you brought a sniper to a protest rally. It means you're looking for trouble and you got what you came for. Ditto for AR-15s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
The type of weapon used shows intent. He was carrying an AR-15. Mass murderers use AR-15s, not for self defense. He was 17 at the time, high on adrenaline. It wouldn't be a good weapon to use in a close combat self defense scenario anyway so why use that?

Just to exaggerate my point - You can't claim self defense if you brought a sniper to a protest rally. It means you're looking for trouble and you got what you came for.
Exactly. Because his intent was to stand by the auto dealership store, so troublemakers can see from further away that he's guarding it and is armed.
 

·
Premium Member
The best is yet to come
Joined
·
31,267 Posts
I read that one of the killed man tried to knock out him with a skateboard... I mean who does that?
Only an utterly violent and imbecile person. So it was in a way deserved.

Also as far as I know no persons were officially prosecuted for the lootings the BLM "activists" (aham, more like terrorists) did during last June-July.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
right of self defense is not taken away if the person does not come with clean hands...for eg even a thief has right to kill the owner if the owner is causing apprehension of death or serious injury when the thief has clearly stopped being a threat..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #157 ·
Exactly. Because his intent was to stand by the auto dealership store, so troublemakers can see from further away that he's guarding it and is armed.
Where did you read this?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
The type of weapon used shows intent. He was carrying an AR-15. Mass murderers use AR-15s, not for self defense. He was 17 at the time, high on adrenaline. It wouldn't be a good weapon to use in a close combat self defense scenario anyway so why use that?

Just to exaggerate my point - You can't claim self defense if you brought a sniper to a protest rally. It means you're looking for trouble and you got what you came for.
I already told you there were numerous people carrying rifles, but you brushed it aside claiming Rittenhouse was the only one looking to use the gun while the others were doing it for self-defense. None of this was established during the trial (as was no reason for Rosenbaum to chase Rittenhouse). Again, a Kangaroo court mindset, inventing reasons.

As to your 'rifle in a self defense situation' point. As said, doesn't matter what kind of a gun there was as it wasn't used to attack someone. I imagine carrying all sorts of weapons is simply part of the American gun culture. 2nd amendment. On top of that I'd imagine for some the guns were also supposed to act as a deterrent. While it was a chaotic situation with various reasons and motivations, people were also there to defend properties from being destroyed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #160 ·
It's a fact. There's no evidence he did anything else that night. He wasn't mindlessly roaming the streets and pointing gun at people.

@Ilkae is schooling you, yet you can't be a man enough to admit that you're wrong.
Literally everyone is saying he shouldn't have taken his assault rifle into the protest march searching for trouble so then you cannot claim self defense carrying such a weapon.
Now you're changing saying that he was only there guarding some store. Which one is it?
 
141 - 160 of 299 Posts
Top