Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….

What do you think will happen?

  • Guilty on all charges

    Votes: 282 8.8%
  • Full Acquittal

    Votes: 1,077 33.7%
  • Mistral

    Votes: 264 8.3%
  • Mixture of verdicts

    Votes: 479 15.0%
  • Minecraft

    Votes: 213 6.7%
  • Roblox

    Votes: 132 4.1%
  • Runescape

    Votes: 203 6.3%
  • Somehow Guilty Of Two Mutually Exclusive Actions

    Votes: 514 16.1%
  • KYLE WILL SUBMIT TO BBC

    Votes: 35 1.1%

  • Total voters
    3,199
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
So what's the latest? And good clips of funny/ridiculous court moments from the past week for ppl who don't feel like combing through 800 pages in a fast moving thread?
 
i have a theory now hear me out.

you know how people are worried about the media tainting the jury over the weekend? well what if that backfires? what does the media say about kyle rittenhouse? he's a racist, he shot black people, he crossed state lines with a gun, he went there to shoot people and other blatantly false and horrible things.

if i were on the jury, i'd see all this stuff after having seen all the evidence to the contrary and you know what i'd think? the media is trying to lynch this kid. i'd do whatever i could to stop it as well. what are the odds a few other people on the jury are thinking the same thing? let me put it in another way, imagine you were on the jury and had the same line of thinking as me. now imagine that was your home town that got burned down and looted.

edit: people will bring up chauvin, but the truth is that he wasn't ever gonna go free even in a normal trial. he would have gotten manslaughter at minimum.
My reason for believing Kyle will be found guilty on all charges is mainly that this is a highly politized case in which even the sitting President has said that Kyle is guilty and a Nazi. Look at Kenosha, a leans blue county with a Dem mayor, and then think of what the average jury member will do (remember that most of them are white women). Will you expect all of them to defy their party and look at this case objectively?

Then there's also the threat of more riots if Kyle is found not guilty. I've heard the argument that the jury will find him innocent due to them thinking of Kyle as their own kid, but the main question for me is: are this people willing to risk yet another bout of burning and looting for this kid? Do they really want to risk that? Or will they offer Kyle as a sacrificial lamb in order to maintain peace within the city? I'm going to guess that they will do anything to avoid another confrontation.

TL,DR: The verdict hinges the jury being both principled enough to ignore politics and have the courage to stand up to powerful interests. This is why I said trusting the jury is an extremely bad idea.

Edit: fucking emojis
 
Last edited:
The issue isn't exclusive to just cops.
But not every cop behaves in that manner. Its considerably fewer than the public would believe.
I know, the problem is that american society it's too violent as a whole.
In regard to the cops, yes they are few, but still significantly more than any other western nation, and since the doing illegal things is already illegal the istitution should try to make people less afraid of cops
It needs to be dealt with at the roots before an incident even occurs, because in the event that something escalates to the point where an officer needs to pull out his gun, it's already too late.
Hard agree, in certain european nation you can buy more or less any gun, but you can't carry it around assembled and loaded.
Thing is, getting checked is extremely rare, so you could get to the city centre with a bag, assemble the rifle in a bathroom and start blasting people, but it doesn't happen. The problem is at the root of american culture
 
I know, the problem is that american society it's too violent as a whole.
In regard to the cops, yes they are few, but still significantly more than any other western nation, and since the doing illegal things is already illegal the istitution should try to make people less afraid of cops

Hard agree, in certain european nation you can buy more or less any gun, but you can't carry it around assembled and loaded.
Thing is, getting checked is extremely rare, so you could get to the city centre with a bag, assemble the rifle in a bathroom and start blasting people, but it doesn't happen. The problem is at the root of american culture
I think it's less about American violence because I think all western and some of eastern culture has been exposed to the same amount of violence and has a predisposition for it.

Where America differs is the amount of entitlement that is held both by officers and perps. They feel entitled to behave a certain way and hold certain beliefs and the way that some of the witnesses, Rosenbaum, Huber, Ziminski and Binger specifically (with him giving no fucks about violating the constitution as long as he got the answer he wanted) highlights why this is far more dangerous than "violence culture." People who may have a violent disposition aren't inherently dangerous. It's people who have no respect for others that are far more dangerous, because these are the people who will go to any length to hurt others because they feel entitled to do so.
 
That problem is called niggers.
And what's wrong with nig culture?
Entitlement. They've got to be the most oppressed, WE WUZ KANGZ, claiming that a black person is responsible for everything and whitey took it from them, wanting gibs from the government, wanting to be able to commit crimes with no consequences, the list goes on.
 
there was a moment where the judge accused Binger of making it a polticial trial and he looked down and smiled as if the camera didnt catch him.
Nothing made me want to kill somebody so bad than when I saw that smug, evolved version of Russell Greer, smirk.

"Haha everything is political 😏😎"

I get it's his job to try to prove that Rittenhouse is guilty, but he's arguing in such bad faith, and tried impeding on Saint Kyle's constitutional rights 3 times. Kyle should've been acquitted 2-3 days ago because of the shit that Funko Pop loving nigger pulled.
 
...How can I get through to him?...
Your friend is an omega male and I'm sorry, it is terminal. Best to do is just hear, understand and move on. Trying to convince anyone of anything in this era is a near impossible task. I found it best to just let folks like this sit and stew and come to the conclusion later. Like my friend, eats up all the headlines back when Trump was in office. He believed everything and it was only recently that he's started to notice all the lies. I wouldn't say he is red pilled but he did claw himself out of the pit of SJW territory.

TLDR: Don't waste your time trying to convince and instead weigh if continuing a friendly relationship is worth it to you.
 
No. I refuse to abandon someone who has been such a good and close friend to me over the years. You don’t disown your brother just because he got cancer. You help him fight it. You help him get better and heal. We have to show the compassion that they can’t. It’s our responsibility to mend this rift and reunite our country. If we can’t do that then we don’t have an America to save.
I used to feel this way too but somethings changed. If your brother got cancer you could help him because he would want to get better. These people don't want to get better. They honestly don't think anything is wrong. The NPC meme is way too accurate. They are regurgitating verbatim talking points They heard or read someplace else without any critical thought applied. It's sad.

This isn't the first time I've encountered this even with the friend I referenced but each time it becomes clearer that it's a lost cause trying to reason with them. The people saying "He crossed state lines" don't know that started because originally people thought he brought is gun with him over it. We now know he did not. To still say "crossing state lines" when it has no practical bearings on the case is a sign they are not thinking for themselves. You cannot reason it people who cannot think. What's worse is they don't want to think.

You can continue to.bang your head agaisnt the wall for however long you want, but it would behoove you to accept your friend is a lost cause, decide whether or not you want to continue being friends with them, and either way continue to love your best life. These people will not be convinced via logic, only via emotional stress. You living a better life than them will be good for you and may cause enough turmoil in them they might be open to hearing what you have to say.
 
Firstly, he believes that Kyle illegally purchased the gun through his friend Black with the sole intention of going to the riot and putting himself in a situation in which he would be “forced” to shoot people. This, he says, is based off of Kyle’s tweets wherein he talked about shooting shoplifters. I of course put it to him that such a claim was at worst coincidental as I know for a fact that such statements are made constantly through social media and often have no bearing on the reality of what a person would actually do in those scenarios.
It sounds like he got his rifle before the George Floyd riots:

AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Secondly, he claims as many have, that the case should be retried
What does he mean, retried? Does he not believe in double jeopardy?

because the judge is biased towards Kyle and a racist. His reasoning for this believe is, according to him, that the Judge ruled that the defense could call the victims anything but.
The claim is self defense and not referring to the deceased as victims is standard procedure:
"That's pretty standard in his courtroom to not allow 'victim,'" said Ted Kmiec, a local criminal defense lawyer who has had cases before Schroeder. "He believes you're presumed innocent, and with that presumption of innocence, nobody is a victim unless it's proven."
"But he allowed the term arsonist, rioter, etc."

First, we have multiple testimony that Rosenbaum was an arsonist. Additionally, the mere fact on is a rioter or arson (of non occupied property) does not mean deadly force can be used. Using the argument that they were rioters so deadly force is okay will only lead to a guilty verdict.

Addion
Additionally, he is of the belief that the ring tone used by the Judge is in fact a reason to believe that the Judge is necessarily pro Trump.
A ringtone is just a ringtone. He has to have credible evidence that the ringtone was not selected because the judge is boomer patriot.

The song existed before Trump was President and his run for office. Such it's reasonable to believe that the judge had the ringtone before Trump used it.
Finally, and most annoyingly, he is of the opinion that Kyle is a racist supporter of the Proud Boys, claiming that they even flew a flag celebrating and depicting the number of people he shot. This, he insists, is further evidence that Kyle had every intention of shooting someone during the riot.
So your friend believes that because of Kyle's drinks with the proud boys many weeks AFTER the shooting, it's indicative of his attitude back in time?

Remember that Kyle was ON CUSTODY before the drinks with Proud Boys immediately following his release.

As such, your friend will need to believe Kyle was in clandestine contact with the Proud Boys before the shooting then with very little time set up a meeting after his release from jail.

It's more likely that his boomer mom or impressionable sister got talked into the meeting.
He thereafter refused to take into account the circumstances that led up to that event or the suspicious individual whom had set it up and lured Kyle there to begin with. It is his belief that Kyle wouldn’t have done any of these things if he were really innocent.

So community protection means one wants to shoot someone? What does he think of armed Black groups that focus on community protection?
15892929920182.jpg

 
Been trying to work out why this npc statement bothers me so much.
The whole "Shouldn't have been there" argument does nothing to decide whether it was self defense or not. It's swerving away from the issue in an attempt to automatically declare Rittenhouse guilty without needing to watch the trial; the same people saying that today were saying it two weeks ago, along with muh state lines.

It's not an argument, it's a character attack from people who only deal with stuff like this with character attacks instead of logic or nuance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back