Kyle Rittenhouse
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
So. . . "This is completely irrelevant. Not even sure why I stuck it in here, but it was ABSOLUTELY NOT to suggest that Rittenhouse is innocent because Rosenbaum deserved to die!""Newly released Joseph Rosenbaum sex offender documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Joseph Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old."
Joseph Rosenbaum Sex Offender Arizona '02 Criminal Complaint
Joseph Rosenbaum Sex Offender: Arizona court documents confirm Rosenbaum charged with child molestation causing his sex offender status.www.wisconsinrightnow.com
Wow. Just wow.
To be clear, this does not mean it was open season, it has nothing to do with Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence.
But it does speak to Rosenbaum's character, to say the least. He had other minor charges pending as well.
I won't be shedding any tears for this guy.
Sound about right?
I see you didn’t read or comprehend the rest of his post .
It's a form of empathic perceived justice for Rosebush's victims although irrelevant as the kid had no idea of Rosebush's criminal history. Rosebush's violent behavior was however experienced by the accused leading to defending himself with force causing death.
It would a tough slog to say that doesn't chuck a bias into minds regardless of whom they may be.
Sound about right?
Last edited:
Unusually cogent and accurate.
Just wanted to stress that if Rosenbaum had been a war hero/humanitarian/philanthropist/volunteer worker with cute li'l puppy-dogs and kitty-cats, it should make not difference to the key question. . . did young Kyle have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm?
In the opinion of 12 people in a nice safe guarded well-lit comfy jury box, that is.
You were expecting Judge, Judy and Executioner?
Apparently there is video evidence. I haven't viewed any of it. It should provide the jury with what they need to make a reasonable decision.
I hope so. On what I've seen so far, I'd vote to acquit. Seems to me like a pretty clear case of self defense.
But it's a near-run thing generally. Frequently in self-defense cases, your assailant isn't so thoughtful as to point a gun at you.
Correct.
This is not a court of law, therefore the facts are ALL admissible,
Rosenbaum served his time, he did not deserve to die. But it does reflect his character in a very negative way, and his violence and lack of self control partially explain why he was stupid enough to pursue and lunge at a man armed with an AR 15.
I was keeping out of this thread but a thought came to me yesterday.
So the lone survivor of the attack gave a fucking horrible testimony the other day. Admitted he pointed a gun at Kyle after he was pointing his weapon at him.
Two thoughts then:
1. Had the guy SHOT Kyle, would HE now be in the box defending himself against murder charges? Which leads to...
2. Had he shot Kyle, could HE not have claimed self-defense because he had his hands up and Kyle pointed his gun at him first?
Cause per the NA "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Yep. That's part of the confusion that surrounds the defense. Also, sometimes the doctrine of "mutual combatants" removes the defense from all parties in the fight, or as I said before, there's times when going looking for a fight, particularly when illegally armed, nullifies a self defense claim.
Ultimately, this will come down to how afraid the jury is of scary antifa, which is why the defense is pursuing the "scumbag deserved to die" line.
Here's the difference; Rittenhouse was running towards the police, being pursued by several protestors, including Grosskreutz, who drew his firearm. When Grosskreutz caught up, he charged in while Rittenhouse was on the ground, under attack by multiple assailants. Grosskreutz had his gun in his hand.
That makes it very, very hard to portray any action by Grosskreutz as self defense, no matter who fired first. Grosskreutz was the aggressor, obviously.
Only my opinion, but I think the factors leading up to the shots being fired count.
"ETA: I'm sure you'll or others go off on how I'm avoiding things or being a 'typical leftie' or what the fuck ever.
Honestly, I don't care. Fill your boots."
What you are avoiding is the fact that Kyle was in fear of his life as has been adequately proven by both sides now and backed up with video/photo evidence. He was attacked. He was defending himself. He is not guilty of the charge brought against him.
The media and the Democrats have no choice but to hate Kyle. He defended himself against the monster they both created and showed the world why someone would need a semi-auto with a 30 round capacity.
He was such a lousy shot that he needed 30 rounds to shoot three guys?
9
was there 30 rounds fired or simply a 30 round capacity magazine ?