Rittenhouse hyperventilating and blubbering like a bitch on the stand.

[Bud_Spencer]

You bring up the point the whole trial revolves around, did he go looking for trouble, or did trouble find him....

Be interesting to see how the jury rules.....they haven't ruled yet have they?

What evidence is there that he went looking for trouble?

 

[pecksniff]

What evidence is there that he went looking for trouble?

You don't carry a rifle to a political demonstration, nor to a riot zone, if you're not.

 

[Cubantripod]

You don't carry a rifle to a political demonstration, nor to a riot zone, if you're not.

Show me the statute he broke?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

You don't carry a rifle to a political demonstration, nor to a riot zone, if you're not.

That's a ridiculous assertion. Mere possession of a firearm does not imply aggressive intent. If it did, KR could have shot scores of people before he finally shot one that had vowed to kill him and was in the act of attempting to do just that.

 

[pecksniff]

Show me the statute he broke?

I said he was looking for trouble. You're dragging in an irrelevance.

 

[pecksniff]

That's a ridiculous assertion. Mere possession of a firearm does not imply aggressive intent. If it did, KR could have shot scores of people before he finally shot one that had vowed to kill him and was in the act of attempting to do just that.

They shouldn't have come armed either, but that doesn't excuse Rittenhouse.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

They shouldn't have come armed either, but that doesn't excuse Rittenhouse.

KR doesn't require an excuse. Open carry is perfectly legal in WI, and there's no exception for when the Left is out rioting again. There is not a shred of evidence that KR was looking for or provoking trouble. That came from the assembled looters and rioters.

 

[pecksniff]

KR doesn't require an excuse. Open carry is perfectly legal in WI, and there's no exception for when the Left is out rioting again. There is not a shred of evidence that KR was looking for or provoking trouble.

That he was there, and armed, is such evidence.

 

[Cubantripod]

That he was there, and armed, is such evidence.

Then why is he still allowed to argue self defense? If he provoked it, he can't argue self defense.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

That he was there, and armed, is such evidence.

KR was there rendering aid and protection. His being armed was for defensive purposes only, as videos of him prior to the shootings will confirm. Furthermore, he was involved in no incidents the entire evening until he was assaulted by Rosenbaum, again refuting the laughable assertion that he was looking for trouble. If he was, he could have found it long before Rosenbaum went after him, vowing to kill him.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What evidence is there that he went looking for trouble?

I have no clue, I am not a Jurist, so I have not even bothered checking out what is going on.

I just dropped in to comment on one of the more "relevant" posts, and have ignored the rest of this threads bullshit ones.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Then why is he still allowed to argue self defense? If he provoked it, he can't argue self defense.

You'll notice the southpaws here have no problem with the rioters who were armed.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Then why is he still allowed to argue self defense? If he provoked it, he can't argue self defense.

Of course he can argue "self-defence". Hell he could argue he is the second coming of Christ. All that matters is what the Jury believes.....they are the ONLY people who's opinion matter. Not yours, mine, Peck, or Bud....

 

[Bud_Spencer]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/riots.jpg

 

[Lazaran]

I have no clue, I am not a Jurist, so I have not even bothered checking out what is going on.

I just dropped in to comment on one of the more "relevant" posts, and have ignored the rest of this threads bullshit ones.

The proof that Rottenhouse "went looking for trouble" has already been provided by his own and other's testimony. Crossing state lines and illegally obtaining an AR-15, then traveling to Kenosha are the first acts that prove Rottenhouse "went looking for trouble". Additionally, the property Rottenhouse lied about being enjoined to protect with his illegal AR-15 was behind a police line after the police advanced and pushed the protesters further down the street. At that point Rottenhouse and his "squadmate" Ryan Balch decided to abandon their "post" and cross the police line, in pursuit of the protesters who had been driven back tby the police. In other word, they "went looking for trouble".

There is also video evidence where Rottenhouse admits to pointing his illegal AR-15 at a protester who was standing on top of a car, long before the first fatal shooting. The video was captured after Rottenhouse and Ryan Balch crossed the police line and began initiating confrontations with protesters. Rottenhouse is on video offering obviously healthy protesters "medical" assistance, after he lied to the reporter taking the video about being an EMT. One of the healthy protesters Rottenhouse confronted under the guise of offering "medical" assistance called him out as the guy who pointed his gun at him while he was standing on a car. Rottenhouse is heard on that same video admitting that he did.

Rottenhouse also ran with his illegal AR-15 to the area where the first fatal shooting took place. The victim did not run to the property that Rottenhouse lied about being enjoined to protect.

Those are the facts in evidence.

Rottenhouse's self defense claim will likely be upheld because the people he shot reacted to his provocations by threatening him and chasing him. Rottenhouse's justification for the first shooting of the unarmed mental case is as old as the hills. He killed the unarmed guy because he was grabbing for Rottenhouse's illegal AR-15, and Rottenhouse was afraid the guy would take his illegal AR-15 from him and murder him with it.

Classic.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The proof that Rottenhouse "went looking for trouble" has already been provided by his own and other's testimony. Crossing state lines and illegally obtaining an AR-15, then traveling to Kenosha are the first acts that prove Rottenhouse "went looking for trouble". Additionally, the property Rottenhouse lied about being enjoined to protect with his illegal AR-15 was behind a police line after the police advanced and pushed the protesters further down the street. At that point Rottenhouse and his "squadmate" Ryan Balch decided to abandon their "post" and cross the police line, in pursuit of the protesters who had been driven back tby the police. In other word, they "went looking for trouble".

There is also video evidence where Rottenhouse admits to pointing his illegal AR-15 at a protester who was standing on top of a car, long before the first fatal shooting. The video was captured after Rottenhouse and Ryan Balch crossed the police line and began initiating confrontations with protesters. Rottenhouse is on video offering obviously healthy protesters "medical" assistance, after he lied to the reporter taking the video about being an EMT. One of the healthy protesters Rottenhouse confronted under the guise of offering "medical" assistance called him out as the guy who pointed his gun at him while he was standing on a car. Rottenhouse is heard on that same video admitting that he did.

Rottenhouse also ran with his illegal AR-15 to the area where the first fatal shooting took place. The victim did not run to the property that Rottenhouse lied about being enjoined to protect.

Those are the facts in evidence.

Rottenhouse's self defense claim will likely be upheld because the people he shot reacted to his provocations by threatening him and chasing him. Rottenhouse's justification for the first shooting of the unarmed mental case is as old as the hills. He killed the unarmed guy because he was grabbing for Rottenhouse's illegal AR-15, and Rottenhouse was afraid the guy would take his illegal AR-15 from him and murder him with it.

Classic.

Deranged

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Deranged

Neither of you two sit on the Jury, so whatever....but your polar opposite positions does illustrate how people can view something and end up with total dissimilar opinions.

 

[HisArpy]

It is not an issue anyone should take seriously in this case. Rittenhouse went looking for trouble.

Let's see...

He took a firearm to a riot.
He ran toward the crowd instead of away from it.
He pointed his gun at people.
Made threats against someone's life.

That was said by Bicep Guy during his testimony on the witness stand.





Sounds like he "was looking for trouble."

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Let's see...

He took a firearm to a riot.
He ran toward the crowd instead of away from it.
He pointed his gun at people.
Made threats against someone's life.

That was said by Bicep Guy during his testimony on the witness stand.

Sounds like he "was looking for trouble."

Bicep Boy lied repeatedly in his statement and on the stand, then on CNN. The truth is not in him.

 

[HisArpy]

Bicep Boy lied repeatedly in his statement and on the stand, then on CNN. The truth is not in him.

Whether he did or didn't isn't the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that Bicep Boy "went looking for trouble" and found it.

If it's okay for him (because so far I've yet to read a single denouncement of his actions by the Litiots) then why isn't it okay for Rittenhouse?

Because politics. The Litiots are against whatever someone does which points out their hypocrisies and illegalities. They make up lies to justify their hatreds. And then they gang up together to promote those lies and hatreds.

This is who they are. And when cornered they instantly spew more hate and Ad Hom while hiding behind "I never said that" when indeed they did.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Whether he did or didn't isn't the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that Bicep Boy "went looking for trouble" and found it.

If it's okay for him (because so far I've yet to read a single denouncement of his actions by the Litiots) then why isn't it okay for Rittenhouse?

Because politics. The Litiots are against whatever someone does which points out their hypocrisies and illegalities. They make up lies to justify their hatreds. And then they gang up together to promote those lies and hatreds.

This is who they are. And when cornered they instantly spew more hate and Ad Hom while hiding behind "I never said that" when indeed they did.

As concise and accurate a post as I've seen here.

 

[Adre]

If they want to bring charges against Bicep Boy by all means go ahead. Meanwhile, he’s not on trial and he killed no one. Blubber Boy is, and he did.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

If they want to bring charges against Bicep Boy by all means go ahead. Meanwhile, he’s not on trial and he killed no one. Blubber Boy is, and he did.

They dropped charges on Grosskreutz. Odd, no, for prosecutors so focused on the rule of law? It's almost as if they want to avoid the appearance that their star witness is a criminal.

 

[HisArpy]

They dropped charges on Grosskreutz. Odd, no, for prosecutors so focused on the rule of law? It's almost as if they want to avoid the appearance that their star witness is a criminal.

Yeah, it's really funny how that works in political kangaroo court proceedings and no one seems to notice.

All pending charges again Bicep Boy were dropped on Oct 28th. Nor has he been charged with the FELONY offenses he admitted to during his testimony.

Strange.

 

[HisArpy]

If they want to bring charges against Bicep Boy by all means go ahead. Meanwhile, he’s not on trial and he killed no one. Blubber Boy is, and he did.

But, but...

Did he go "looking for trouble" or not?

Because if he did, then my point is valid that if it's okay for him, then it's okay for Rittenhouse.

If it's not okay for Rittenhouse, then why hasn't Bicep Boy been charged and why were the pending charges against him dropped?

Double standards maybe?