Rittenhouse Trial

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
11,301
5,558
1,743
30
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
#1
This thing should never have made it this far. All it has done has shown how political our justice system has become. Not sure what the prosecution was thinking with some of these witnesses they called but several of them seemed more fitting for the defense team. There is a 0% percent chance the murder charges stand and its likely he walks away with nothing. Just an absolute joke that this is even in front of a jury.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 

snuffy

Calf fries are the original sack lunch.
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Feb 28, 2007
38,674
31,447
1,743
Oklahoma
#2
This thing should never have made it this far. All it has done has shown how political our justice system has become. Not sure what the prosecution was thinking with some of these witnesses they called but several of them seemed more fitting for the defense team. There is a 0% percent chance the murder charges stand and its likely he walks away with nothing. Just an absolute joke that this is even in front of a jury.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
I am not sure how you got there but it is very unclear if it was self defense which is what he is claiming. BTW the property he was protecting, the owners said they did not ask for his protection or give him permission to guard their property. I have questions if it was murdered or self defense but it should be in front of a jury.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,399
15,289
1,743
#4
He is guilty of the charge of underaged possession of a firearm and taking across state lines. The first shooting that occurred off camera is the tough one because we can't see what took place.

The shooting that took place in front of a camera is as clear cut self defense as it could be to me. Unless you are basically saying he forfeited the right to self defense because of his actions minutes earlier and a few hundred feet away.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,211
2,353
1,743
#5
He is guilty of the charge of underaged possession of a firearm and taking across state lines. The first shooting that occurred off camera is the tough one because we can't see what took place.

The shooting that took place in front of a camera is as clear cut self defense as it could be to me. Unless you are basically saying he forfeited the right to self defense because of his actions minutes earlier and a few hundred feet away.
I think that is the key. A cold -blood murderer who killed someone and then was chased down by a mob shouldn’t get self defense if he then killed someone in the mob.
But if Rittenhouse shot someone doing something illegal and then the mob chased him then he deserves argument of self defense.

Interesting case. A person traveling many miles and bringing a gun to “defend” property is looking for violence.
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,182
390
713
51
#6
I think that is the key. A cold -blood murderer who killed someone and then was chased down by a mob shouldn’t get self defense if he then killed someone in the mob.
But if Rittenhouse shot someone doing something illegal and then the mob chased him then he deserves argument of self defense.

Interesting case. A person traveling many miles and bringing a gun to “defend” property is looking for violence.
Can you clear up “doing something illegal?” If someone was illegally damaging property, do they deserve to be shot? He isn’t police, judge and jury.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,399
15,289
1,743
#7
I think that is the key. A cold -blood murderer who killed someone and then was chased down by a mob shouldn’t get self defense if he then killed someone in the mob.
But if Rittenhouse shot someone doing something illegal and then the mob chased him then he deserves argument of self defense.

Interesting case. A person traveling many miles and bringing a gun to “defend” property is looking for violence.
If they attack him to stop him from shooting more people I don't support his right to self defense. If they attack him in revenge, I do support his attempt for self preservation. That's the part that makes the difference for me Rittenhouse was running for his life, trying to get to the police when the 3 he shot caught up with him. Had they kept chasing him, he would have ended up with the police which is where you want people who are a danger to others.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,399
15,289
1,743
#8
Can you clear up “doing something illegal?” If someone was illegally damaging property, do they deserve to be shot? He isn’t police, judge and jury.
If he shot someone because they were lighting fires or breaking windows he is guilty. If he shot them because they were surrounding him and physically attacking him, in my mind, he has a right to self defense.
 
May 31, 2007
2,286
508
1,743
Concord
#9
This thing should never have made it this far. All it has done has shown how political our justice system has become. Not sure what the prosecution was thinking with some of these witnesses they called but several of them seemed more fitting for the defense team. There is a 0% percent chance the murder charges stand and its likely he walks away with nothing. Just an absolute joke that this is even in front of a jury.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
I agree that the murder charge is a joke but that doesn’t mean he can’t get convicted. Bad convictions happen all the time and this thing being politically motivated means all bets are off.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,117
4,507
1,743
#10
Can you clear up “doing something illegal?” If someone was illegally damaging property, do they deserve to be shot? He isn’t police, judge and jury.
If he shot someone because they were lighting fires or breaking windows he is guilty. If he shot them because they were surrounding him and physically attacking him, in my mind, he has a right to self defense.
The first person he shot was the guy who chased him down and tried to take his gun. Someone behind them shot a gun into the air, Kyle turned around and rosenbaum tried to take the gun from him and Kyle shot him.
This was after earlier in the night, that the deceased had told them if he got any of them alone, he'd kill them.

Also, I believe it was established that he did not bring the gun across state lines, that it belonged to a friend.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,211
2,353
1,743
#11
I am not sure how you got there but it is very unclear if it was self defense which is what he is claiming. BTW the property he was protecting, the owners said they did not ask for his protection or give him permission to guard their property. I have questions if it was murdered or self defense but it should be in front of a jury.
The owners of the property are certainly disavowing telling Rittenhouse to guard their property. Maybe they didn’t, but certainly they don’t want any potential liability.
But owners posed for multiple pictures with Rittenhouse and others, with their guns, the day of the murders. And Rittenhouse texted the owners and appears to know them by calling them by name.
 

snuffy

Calf fries are the original sack lunch.
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Feb 28, 2007
38,674
31,447
1,743
Oklahoma
#12
The owners of the property are certainly disavowing telling Rittenhouse to guard their property. Maybe they didn’t, but certainly they don’t want any potential liability.
But owners posed for multiple pictures with Rittenhouse and others, with their guns, the day of the murders. And Rittenhouse texted the owners and appears to know them by calling them by name.
That is good information, what I posted is what they testified to in court.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,026
32,883
1,743
oklahoma city
#13
It would be so awesome if a simulation could be made where a black kid from the south side of Chicago went to a right wing protest such a Jan 6th with an illegally possessed firearm to "protect the nation" and ended up shooting a couple of "patriots" with the personal actions and video otherwise identical to this situation. Then, have him charged with murder (as we all know he would be). Something makes me think that the same people who always come down on the political right side would suddenly not find the murder charges so ridiculous. They would not be calling this "political." And, they would be saying that he had committed crimes therefore that limits his self-defense argument. Of course, they would be making no effort to dig up on left-wing new sites "information" that tries to decrease his culpability and claim it as truth because they read it there.

Basically, change nothing but the politics and I bet the majority of people calling this political would have a completely different opinion. Of course, that can't be done but the years of posts with the same people always defending the same political side sort of make the answer obvious.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,204
20,814
1,743
#14
I agree that the murder charge is a joke but that doesn’t mean he can’t get convicted. Bad convictions happen all the time and this thing being politically motivated means all bets are off.
Oh good...another google/Facebook lawyer. :facepalm:
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
8,287
3,749
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#15
I’m so lost here. How can anyone claim one way or another? I watched the videos. I’ve heard the breakdowns. But it doesn’t seem so clear to me. Even after hearing both sides, it seems the truth is somewhere in between. Dark videos with people running and screaming is as clear as mud.

I watched the video that was just found and the defense claims they were never even told it existed. The drone view from the fbi. Which btw, adds entire extra dimension to this story that somehow got over looked, that the defense claims it’s proof of their story. It’s not. Not clear at all. I need announcers with instant replay and markers circling all the players.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,204
20,814
1,743
#17
I’m so lost here. How can anyone claim one way or another? I watched the videos. I’ve heard the breakdowns. But it doesn’t seem so clear to me. Even after hearing both sides, it seems the truth is somewhere in between. Dark videos with people running and screaming is as clear as mud.

I watched the video that was just found and the defense claims they were never even told it existed. The drone view from the fbi. Which btw, adds entire extra dimension to this story that somehow got over looked, that the defense claims it’s proof of their story. It’s not. Not clear at all. I need announcers with instant replay and markers circling all the players.
That's why we have jury trials instead of trying criminal cases in the media with google lawyers at the helm.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,399
15,289
1,743
#20
That's why we have jury trials instead of trying criminal cases in the media with google lawyers at the helm.
Aren't juries comprised of regular people like those posting on here?

Being under qualified doesn't stop most of us from second guessing football coaches with far more football knowledge or playing armchair economists.