I've seen very little of the Rittenhouse trial. I have a question.

[Texacon]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216055844


This OP brings up a question I've been wanting to ask DU, or anyone who thinks they can answer it.

Progressive Jones (4,993 posts)


I've seen very little of the Rittenhouse trial. I have a question.

 

During the trial, has the prosecution noted that after Rittenhouse committed his first murder (Rosenbaum), the people he claimed were "attacking him" were justified in their actions as they were trying to subdue a violent criminal?

FBaggins (23,380 posts)

16. Many times. The problem is - that doesn't matter

If they were being brought up on charges for assaulting him, they would have a clear defense that they believed that he was a threat.

But they aren't and that isn't how the law works. It doesn't look at two sides and try to figure out who the "good guy" was... and the other one goes to prison. The question is only who is being charged and whether or not they thought that they needed to defend themselves. Not whether they actually did have to.

So here's the question; after reading thread after thread over there about this trial and their thoughts, WHY do they think it was ok for these people to run KR to ground and smack him with a skateboard, try to kick him in the head, try to take his firearm away from him, and pull a gun on him?

The reason I ask this, and I'll bet a few of our DU sleuths here can find the threads, is because not that long ago a cop was chasing a young black man down an alley in, I think Chicago?, and when the cop was catching up to the man he turned toward the cop, gun in hand, and the cop shot him.  EVERY SINGLE THREAD they posted about that they all claimed that if someone is running from you they ARE NOT A THREAT, and you shouldn't be allowed to shoot them.  Hell, many of them claimed you shouldn't even be chasing them.

So, what is the difference here?  I can see where a DUmmie might throw up several different 'logical', in their mind, reasons, but I can't wrap my head around why it's all of a sudden OK to run a person down and try to kill them.

KC

[Ferrance]

The reason I ask this, and I'll bet a few of our DU sleuths here can find the threads, is because not that long ago a cop was chasing a young black man down an alley in, I think Chicago?

The person in question was Adam Toledo. An armed 13 yr old who didn't listen to police and was shot for his trouble. It happened about 3am back in late March in Chicago. Here's 1 DUmp link about the incident: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215343180

So, what is the difference here?  I can see where a DUmmie might throw up several different 'logical', in their mind, reasons, but I can't wrap my head around why it's all of a sudden OK to run a person down and try to kill them.

The difference is tribalism and the lefty narrative. Adam Toledo was a "innocent child" POC (he was Hispanic) killed by an evil white cop so it fit the narrative. The fact that Toledo was a gang banger was inconsequential. With Rittenhouse he went to disrupt a BLM protest in Kenosha. That automatically makes him guilty of any and all crimes. Circumstances don't matter. Hypocrisy thy name is Democrat.

[DUmpDiver]

FBaggins (23,380 posts)

16. Many times. The problem is - that doesn't matter

If they were being brought up on charges for assaulting him, they would have a clear defense that they believed that he was a threat.

But they aren't and that isn't how the law works. It doesn't look at two sides and try to figure out who the "good guy" was... and the other one goes to prison. The question is only who is being charged and whether or not they thought that they needed to defend themselves. Not whether they actually did have to.

No, because KR wasn't running around shooting people at random. They had NO IDEA that Rosenbaum had attacked KR and that KR was acting in self defense. The only people KR was a "threat" to are the people who attacked him.

[SVPete]

Since the prosecution was obliged to prove R "murdered" Rosenbaum, that argument has a very large hole. It ASSumes what needs to be proved. And since Rosenbaum had threatened to kill R and was trying to grab R's rifle - i.e. trying to use R's rifle to kill R - killing Rosenbaum was self-defense, not "murder".

[Drafe Hoblin]

The case for Rittenhouse's acquittal is so obvious that I'm surprised the jury isn't already walking-back into the courtroom.

Take a preliminary vote and/or trial-comment.  Go around the table, commenting on the comments.  Much of the talk will be about the prosecutor aiming a weapon at them... and of prosecutorial-misconduct in general.   

[ADsOutburst]

I've seen very little of the Rittenhouse trial.

Why am I not surprised?

[FunkyZero]

The case for Rittenhouse's acquittal is so obvious that I'm surprised the jury isn't already walking-back into the courtroom.

Problem is, I'm sure there are at least a handful of lefty jurors sitting there who will completely ignore evidence, law and everything else and allow their hate to vote. They don't know any other way. I fully expect a hung jury

[DUmpDiver]

Problem is, I'm sure there are at least a handful of lefty jurors sitting there who will completely ignore evidence, law and everything else and allow their hate to vote. They don't know any other way. I fully expect a hung jury

Agreed. Which sucks because that results in a mistrial so the prosecutor can retry the case and put him through all of this BS again.

[BannedFromDU]

Agreed. Which sucks because that results in a mistrial so the prosecutor can retry the case and put him through all of this BS again.

     I don't believe they were sequestered, so I suspect there are holdouts who know that another group of leftist woman-beaters and child molesters will join their BLM brethren to do some early Christmas shopping and to light a few bonfires. I think the kid will either walk or will win HUGE on appeal when adults are brought in the adjudicate, and I also think that CNN and MSNBC better practice writing zeroes.

[DefiantSix]

     ...I think the kid will either walk or will win HUGE on appeal when adults are brought in the adjudicate, and I also think that CNN and MSNBC better practice writing zeroes.