Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

He threw a half empty plastic bag that like travelled half the distance needed to hit that far right wing gang member.
And no. The sequel of events is that the far right wing gang member was chased but not in fear for his life.
He then heard gun shots, which is the que when he turned around and aimed his weapon.
That's assault and where his victim has the right to defend himself by trying to take away the weapon.

And this is leaving out nothing, where you are leave out what happened in order to push your agenda.

 

You really should acquaint yourself with the eye witness's statement. They've been posted repeatedly throughout this thread.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/08/27/hom...rittenhouse-accused-killing-kenosha-protests/

 

There is video https://www.fox23.com/news/trending...otesters-killings/DF3G3T5U65FQVCORO5XZPTR57Y/

The first shot was fired before Rosenbaum reached him, he collapsed toward him (inertia does that) after the second shot and it doesn’t appear he ever made contact which is how he was shot in the back, groin and hand.

Do you believe eye an witness’s statement typically overrules video evidence in a courtroom?

 

What do you mean so what its a felony? that small point ruins your pedophile defense case, your saying the pedophile was acting in self defense, The felony arson that he was doing that kicked off the whole events means he can not claim self defense, I'm sorry but thats the law.

No the aiming of the gun happened last, right before he got shot. Rousenbaum had no legal right to try and steal another persons gun, in fact thats another felony.

There is Video of this, there is eye witness testimony on this, I have posted the laws on this. and still you are pushing this lie.
If you think Kyle ran up and pointed his gun at rousenbaum first, then post a video, because there is a video of Kyle running towards Rousenbaum with his gun on his back with a fire extinguisher in his hands. There is also a video of Kyle putting out the second fire the pedo was lighting and then the pedo lunged at him to grab his gun and then kyle "juked" him and ran across the parking lot, then the pedo chased him and threw something at him, then someone else shot, Kyle then turned around and had the gun in a "ready low" position, "pointed at the ground in a 45deg angle" the pedo still tried to grab his gun and ended up getting shot.

There is video of the events and also Testimony from McGinnis of what happened. SO if you are going to try and provide an alternative to the events your going to have to have actual video and testomony to back up your claim to what happened, otherwise it comes across as just fantasy or blatant lying

unless you are chasing them to steal there gun.
if you think otherwise test your theory and chase after a cop and try and grab his gun.. please post your results

No I have addressd the gun shot over and over, The pedio was the first threat that he tried running from, the gunshot does not magically make the pedo threat go away.
Rousenbaum has no legal right to claim self defense, he was in the act of committing several felonies, sorry but thats the law in WI.

No its not, because the crime happened in WI, the ONLY thing that matters is the constitution of the US and WI law, nothing else matters here.

 

That is not the law, since it doesn't show the necessity of that far right wing gang member to pull a gun on somebody for committing that arson. That is why the right to self defense remains in place.

According to McGinniss (a witness) under oath it was the sound of the shot which was the moment Rittenhouse "went from running away to aiming his weapon."
Rosenbaum wasn't able to take a gun from Rittenhouse if he did not stop, turn around and aimed his weapon after the gunshot.
So the aiming happened first. That is assault and so it gives the victim the right of self defense.
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/man-charged-with-firing-handgun-in-air-before-kenosha-shootings/

I posted what a witness said under oath. Sorry.

And I add from the same source....
Attorneys for Rittenhouse have called the gunshot a “pivotal moment” that left the 17-year-old alleged militia member fearing he had “no way out” as he was chased by protesters with “no way to know who fired that shot.”

So the kid was scared for his life when he heard other people shooting. They admit the kid did not know who was shooting, and this was THE moment he feared for his life.
And when he feared for his life. An other witness says he turned around, and aimed his weapon... at Rosenbaum who wasn't the one shooting. That is assaulting the wrong person.

Are there vids out there where Rosenbaum says he is chasing that kid for having a gun, or are you making things up without being able to prove it?

The lawyer of that violent gang member admits that the gun shot was the thing that changed everything

He has, since that violent gang member had no necessity to shoot Rosenbaum over that felony. Such is the law.

 

you are purposefully leaving out what led up to the gunshot.. here let me help you with that..

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/key-...s-richie-mcginniss_n_5f5142d3c5b6578026cb33fe

"Soon afterward, McGinniss said he spotted Rittenhouse running along a downtown street, with a fire extinguisher in his left hand and a rifle slung over his right shoulder."

"Rosenbaum approached him and “tried to engage” the teen for an unknown reason, according to the criminal complaint."

"As Rosenbaum moved closer to the teen, Rittenhouse suddenly veered off the sidewalk to run into a gas station parking lot. McGinniss was close behind. Rosenbaum threw something white at the teen, as captured on video. The object did not hit Rittenhouse and turned out to be a plastic bag, prosecutors said in the complaint. Rosenbaum was unarmed, according to prosecutors.

Several people were milling around the parking lot, and some were moving down the street at the time. But no one other than Rosenbaum and McGinniss appeared to be pursuing Rittenhouse, according to videos of the scene."

"As the three entered the parking lot, McGinniss heard a “pop” from somewhere in the area that was captured on videos. He didn’t know if it was a gun, fireworks or a flash-bang grenade.
After the sound, Rittenhouse stopped abruptly and turned with his rifle angled toward the ground in a “ready” position, McGinniss said. Rosenbaum was suddenly “right next” to Rittenhouse between two cars, McGinniss said. They didn’t speak to one another, as far as he could tell.

At one point, Rosenbaum “made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun,” McGinniss told prosecutors, according to the complaint."

non of the events that happened gave the pedo the right to chase someone and try and steal their gun. The gun was POINTED AT THE GROUND and there was an attempted assault and robbery of the gun by the pedophile

YOU ARE 100% wrong here.

 

Which video are you referring to? Please be precise (as opposed to posting a link to a news article that contains a half dozen different videos on the page).

The video I've seen is from far away, in poor resolution, and with a bad angle to identify clearly if Pedo reached Kyle or was still closing with him when shot. This image is from the instant before Kyle shot Pedo. How much distance do you think there is between Rittenhouse and Pedo?



As for courts, they'll generally consider both eyewitness statements and videos as evidence. One does not automatically "overrule" the other. The relative quality of each will determine how much weight each is given by the jury.

Video:
Crystal clear 4K video shot in good lighting with good angles to see what's going on? Lots of consideration from juries, generally.
Poor quality video in poor lighting, from far away, with bad angles? Not so much.

Witnesses:
Professional-sounding witness that gives clear, precise, and forceful testimony? Usually get lots of consideration from juries.
Someone like the fake Rachel Jeantel witness at George Zimmerman's trial? Not so much.

It's worth pointing out also that Kyle does not have to wait until Pedo has "made contact" to be justified in shooting him. Pedo had already demonstrated what can reasonable be construed as an intent to harm Kyle. Merely reaching towards the gun, even if he has not yet gotten ahold of it or gained control of it, is often sufficient evidence to justify self defense shootings.

 

Zimmerman never chased anyone down. Zimmerman never ran after someone. At worst, Zimmerman followed someone. Following someone in your own neighborhood is not a crime.

However, traveling to another town to destroy things and try to blow up a gasoline station is a crime. And running after the guy who stopped you from blowing up a gas station while screaming threats is also definitely a crime and ample reason for self-defense by that person.

Comparison between the events is insanity.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/man-charged-with-firing-handgun-in-air-before-kenosha-shootings/

This is what was said in the court case, this is what matters:
Attorneys for Rittenhouse have called the gunshot a “pivotal moment” that left the 17-year-old alleged militia member fearing he had “no way out” as he was chased by protesters with “no way to know who fired that shot.”
On-the-scene reporter Richie McGinniss has also said the sound of the shot was the moment Rittenhouse “went from running away to aiming his weapon” in what the teen’s attorneys insist was self-defense.

 

He followed Martin who Zimmerman stated was running away. That is chasing down somebody. That it happened in his own neighborhood is irrelevant.

The claim of bowing up a gas station is just pure fiction. All you got is the same running away and running after.

 

nope

nope

Nope. Lots of picture evidence.

 

Zimmerman was on the phone with the cops, that Martin ran away and that he left his car and was on foot after him.
That is Zimmerman chasing Martin. It fits the definition given by the merriam-webster dictionary.
Who knew, right?

 

nope

 

It ALL matters, and I have said several times that the gun shot was the moment when Kyle went from running to fighting, so what. That has nothing to do with your original point that the pedophile was acting in self defense.

Just because someone else shot a gun does not mean that Kyle gives up his right to self defense against the original pedophile threat. There is no logic to this line of thinking. please tell me how you think the gun shot magically erases the first pedophile threat?

 

Zimmerman was on the phone with the cops, that Martin ran away and that he left his car and was on foot after him.
That is Zimmerman chasing Martin. It fits the definition given by the merriam-webster dictionary.
Who knew, right?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chase
Definition of chase
(Entry 1 of 7)

1a: the hunting of wild animals —used with the
b: the act of chasing : PURSUIT



Totally fits. lol

 

the problem here is that he STOPPED chasing him once the dispatcher told him to stop and he said ok and stopped. So once that happens it is now a new series of events and Martin turned into the aggressor. This has nothing to do with what happened in WI.

 

Ah.. so you admit Zimmerman chased down a kid.

And indeed. A new series of events.... just like Rittenhouse stopped from being chased when he turned around and presented his weapon.

 

Did Rousenbaum stop chasing Kyle and then did Kyle go up to Rousenbaum and attack him like the zimmerman case? No he didnt so why do you think this is a good argument? there is NOTHING that is similar here and is one of your weaker arguments..

 

Kyle stopped being the chased down person when he turned around and showed his weapon.
Tayler stopped being chased when he presented his firsts.

Tayler did not have the right of self defense.
Why should Kyle? Because Tayler is black and has lesser rights?

 

I think I understand your position @notme, you want the 2nd Admen , whit guy and right winger to fry and suffer even more.

 

100% wrong because when Kyle stopped running the pedophile kept advancing and attacking and attempting to steal kyles weapon. There is nothing between both cases to compare here. the fact that you are trying just shows how desperate you are and deep down you know how wrong you are, otherwise you would be arguing WI law (the only thing that matters) and what actually happened in this case.

 

So, you consider Trevon to have been a wild animal . . . isn't that racist?

 

You say there is nothing to compare, but show no difference at all. Both kids went from running because being chased down, to attacking the person who was doing the chasing.
Do note... you disputed that Zimmerman was chasing.... and I had to bring in a dictionary to prove you're wrong. That's how dishonest you are going at it.

 

racist by Zimmerman, who thought a black kid walking in the rain is suspicious enough to call the cops on him, and chase him with a gun.
You're replying to me as if I chased the kid... weird

 

I think what you see on this thread are people strongly politically invested in the concept that individuals should be able to enforce the law with weapons. Those political belief renders any discussion as to the potential legal issues that will arise during the trial pointless. The responses that come back are full of anger, emotion and an assumption that because a person should be able to enforce the law with weapons, any actions that then ensue are legal.

So quite frankly if you are expecting any rational discourse you won't get it. What you will get are strong predetermined political positions.

The actual chain of events leading up to and including all shootings will be analyzed movement by movement using both videos and also listening to eye witness testimony. The defence have the easier arguments in that they only have to raise doubt as to intent to kill. Its the state prosecutors that must show criminal intent or what we call in latin mens rea.

Now in this case there can be a temptation to draw conclusions from articles, pictures, videos, eye witness statements reported in the press but the reality is will be up to the jury to decide. Often in such politically charged cases its also not unusual for an appeal but the appeal will have to be on technical procedural grounds not substantive grounds that is to say the appeal would have to be based on a legal procedure that was not followed or admissibility of evidence being contested.

Its most likely the defense will appeal no matter what the sentence. Whether the crown would appeal is less likely.

All that said what is clear is that Rittenhouse was over his head. He did not have the proper training to handle the intensity of the incidents that confronted him.

Therein lies the true issue we witnessed and so whether Rittenhouse is a deliberate murderer, unintentional killer, reckless, innocent, incompetent etc., the fact remains he was not properly trained.

So this leads to the next question. Why t is it that the police could not identify that armed civilians confronting non armed angry civilians would spell major problems and separate them? How could they not do this?.

Police officers are more likely short to death in the US in domestic violence disputes than any other reason and know better than anyone a civilian with a weapon who is not in control of their emotional faculties is a danger to others and themselves.

What were they thinking that night that they did not tell the armed gun men to get off the streets and go back to the property they claimed to be protecting?

Surely hey share responsibility for what went down that night by not getting armed civilians off the streets at least isolating them to specific property locations and telling them do not walk the streets-do not go after the angry civilians, don't go into the crowds. You want to protect property-stand at the property and guard but don't go into the streets.

What happened? How hard is it to understand if you take a young man and give him an assault rifle and allow him to walk into angry crowds, disaster will happen.

This kind of mentality where Americans feel it is their right to enforce the law with weapons is a political belief but its not based on a crowd containment strategy or logic. Logic dictates you do not want anyone in a volatile situation with a weapon unless properly trained. Therein lies the tragedy of this event.

I and many others trained to use weapons and who have witnessed violence first hand and have enforced the lawdo NOT and would not use weapons. We know better. Even with the training I have I am not a police officer or soldier trained properly. Its one thing to hunt animals for food or practice fire arms target shooting in a properly controlled gun club. Its another taking an assault rifle and walking into a street of angry people with your weapon fully loaded.

Does anyone really believe police who have as many issues they have with shooting their weapon would have shot anyone dead that night? Come on. It is actually very rare a police officer trained in crowd control shoots someone dead. They use tear gas, water, sound/noise from special speakers, pepper spray, tasers, nets shot from air guns, foam.

They are taught to walk in tight formation with shields and use batons.

Something is terribly wrong when you have so many of you wanting your fellow Americans to kill each other because you politically disagree with one another. You are supposed to be the world leader of democracy. Surely you can use the gift of your freedom of expression in a more constructive way.

I think someone also needs to look very seriously at the role of the police this night in question and hold the Police Chief accountable for a failure in the street to separate armed civilians from unarmed civilians.

As for the people in your country who believe they should enforce the law in militias, that is a very real social psychological issue your country has struggled with. Weapons are at the crux of how Americans identity themselves.

Its kind of sad. With all the great things Americans have done, to think your collective identity requires a weapon to express itself is insane.

Just your art, music, literature alone more than express your identity.