Rittenhouse Trial

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,576
15,410
1,743
A full day of deliberations in a trial of this magnitude with this much evidence isn’t at all unusual.

The jury out deciding the your fate is unsettling no matter how long they are out. Trying to figure out what a jury is deliberating based upon length they are out....or even questions they ask of the court from the jury room...is a fool’s game that will drive you nuts, but if you tried the case you can’t help but do it. I imagine it is worse for the Defendant himself.
Apparently you haven't watched enough courtroom drama movies.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,576
15,410
1,743
Juries hear evidence that we don't.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
Sometimes. More often it seems we hear stuff they don't because it's inadmissible.

Dismiss this as narrow minded but the videos were all the evidence I really needed. The death threats to KR by one of the aggressors just made it easier for me.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,327
20,861
1,743
Thanks for the info. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

My opinion has been formed based off the information I've seen. It will only change if I see additional information to change it. The jury's decision and the circumstances surrounding it will have no bearing on it.
That is such an odd concept to me, but okay.

Confirmation bias to the extreme.
 
Sep 9, 2012
1,652
616
743
41
at least if riots/protests do occur there will be plenty of vigilante's on hand...
I wonder how many buildings burn, how much property is stolen, how many people are assaulted, and how many cops get shot this time? All in the name of justice if they don't get what they want.
 

Pokit N

Gent of Good Intent
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
8,414
4,797
1,743
42
Lily Lake, IL
a nation of laws when it's a white guy brandishing an AR-15 and not a black man...and no one knows the interaction that took place before the chase and killing...I know it's surprising, but maybe KR was the instigator early and then turned into the retreater...people say KR was in the right for shooting the guy in arm because he pointed a handgun at KR, but Rosenbaum was not in the right for slapping at rifle that was being pointed at him....
Dude...Rosenbaum told him he was going to kill him earlier in the night. His exact quote: "If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I'm going to f-- kill you!" Then later after KR put out a fire Rosenbaum chased him, someone fired a gun in the air while they were running. KR ran into a row of cars and was cornered. When he turned around Rosenbaum (who for what its worth had anally raped 5 boys in his life) grabbed the gun and said F@$K You!
So could a reasonable person believe that Rosenbaum was trying to kill them after he specifically stated he was going to kill them and then chased them unprovoked while people were shooting in the air? I'd say hell yes.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,326
2,404
1,743
That's speculation. The defendant is supposed to be presumed innocent unless there is proof of this. Do you disagree?
Well, the same poster also said this, “a nation of laws when it’s a white guy brandishing a AR-15 and not a black man.” Apparently, for some and Joy Reid, there is now a racial component in this trial.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,227
5,269
1,743
Somewhere
Well, the same poster also said this, “a nation of laws when it’s a white guy brandishing a AR-15 and not a black man.” Apparently, for some and Joy Reid, there is now a racial component in this trial.
There was a racial component to this all along. Do you think a black man who shot and killed 2 people and injured a 3rd would be able to walk right past police while open carrying and a large group of people saying "this guy just shot people"?

Answer carefully.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,617
4,624
1,743
Of course, Rosenbaum would be alive today as a client of our legal system had he not pursued Rittenhouse or grabbed for his rifle. Someone grabs for your weapon which you are lawfully carrying, that is a lethal force scenario plain and simple.
which is being pointed at you...plain and simple.
It was pointed because rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, then some stupid guy behind them shot a gun in the air and Rittenhouse turned. Rittenhouse was fleeing whatever happened even though he was armed. Rosenbaum was chasing an armed person and then reached for it after having thrown something at Rittenhouse also. I would think Rittenhouse had showed he was trying to avoid the conflict until rosenbaum wouldn't and so he fired when fearing for his life.
If skin color was different I'd say the same thing because this person showed considerable restraint before using deadly force to protect his life. In the exact same situation, same details, I'd feel the same way.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,617
4,624
1,743
Two notes: First, my opinion on this case will only change if I hear further details that shift it. The ruling the jury issues won't change it. Second, I hope you're right. You have more faith in the average person than I do. I know way too many people that would let the threat of their lives being ruined affect their thinking.


What happens if jurors refuse to issue a ruling due to fear of backlash? Would this result in a mistrial?
(Odds are it isn't even true, but I'm curious what would happen.)
So you agree that you’ve set up a scenario to reaffirm your preconceived opinion of his guilt or innocence should the jury render a verdict contrary to your opinion. Cool.

It seems the general assumption on this board is that any alleged threats have come from people threatening them if they don’t convict. It’s equally plausible to me that there could have been threats for if they don’t acquit. Unfortunately, there’s plenty of potentially violent people on both sides of the fence with very strong opinions on this case.

If a jury doesn’t reach a unanimous verdict on a count, it’s a hung jury and subject to a retrial if the prosecutor so elects. They could reach a verdict on certain counts
So far though, only a blm person has made threats publicly and supposedly knows/has people inside the court filming the jury.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,617
4,624
1,743
Not sure about him, but I have to believe the jury still being out is a little unsettling to the defense.
A full day of deliberations in a trial of this magnitude with this much evidence isn’t at all unusual.

The jury out deciding the your fate is unsettling no matter how long they are out. Trying to figure out what a jury is deliberating based upon length they are out....or even questions they ask of the court from the jury room...is a fool’s game that will drive you nuts, but if you tried the case you can’t help but do it. I imagine it is worse for the Defendant himself.
Absolutely. Your fate in the hands of 12 people.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,326
2,404
1,743
There was a racial component to this all along. Do you think a black man who shot and killed 2 people and injured a 3rd would be able to walk right past police while open carrying and a large group of people saying "this guy just shot people"?

Answer carefully.
If that is your thinking, I submit that your personal views and bias are making this racial…..to you.

Why not flip the script? Instead of the statement “ a nation of laws when it’s a white guy brandishing a AR-15 instead of a black man”, why not state “a nation of laws when two white men are killed instead of two black men”. Both statements are equal. Both bring a racial component to the trial that does not exist except in the minds of people that want to make everything about race. And both show incredible pre-conceived bias. And both make me want to shake my head in disgust that we have people that think that way.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,227
5,269
1,743
Somewhere
If that is your thinking, I submit that your personal views and bias are making this racial…..to you.

Why not flip the script? Instead of the statement “ a nation of laws when it’s a white guy brandishing a AR-15 instead of a black man”, why not state “a nation of laws when two white men are killed instead of two black men”. Both statements are equal. Both bring a racial component to the trial that does not exist except in the minds of people that want to make everything about race. And both show incredible pre-conceived bias. And both make me want to shake my head in disgust that we have people that think that way.
Yeah, you would rather stick your head firmly in the sand when there are very different outcomes for people based on skin color in the US when controlling for other factors.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew...that you are a partisan hack that lacks objectivity.

Have a good day.
 
Last edited:
Apr 14, 2009
984
164
1,593
Just an opinion.
I believe IF Kyle Rittenhouse would’ve been black he would now be dead. Because the law that night would’ve shot him dead.
Just my humble opinion.
 

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,398
408
713
Dude...Rosenbaum told him he was going to kill him earlier in the night. His exact quote: "If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I'm going to f-- kill you!" Then later after KR put out a fire Rosenbaum chased him, someone fired a gun in the air while they were running. KR ran into a row of cars and was cornered. When he turned around Rosenbaum (who for what its worth had anally raped 5 boys in his life) grabbed the gun and said F@$K You!
So could a reasonable person believe that Rosenbaum was trying to kill them after he specifically stated he was going to kill them and then chased them unprovoked while people were shooting in the air? I'd say hell yes.
Dude...yes, he said he would kill him earlier, not sure with what, maybe the plastic bag he threw at KR or by taking the rifle from KR which was attached to him...Lackowski, an armed veteran said Rosen was a babbling idiot and perceived his threats as hollow (KR put himself in a situation - going to protest with an AR-15) that he was no way prepared to handle)...I agree with you that a shot was fired in the air and that KR was running and when he felt he was cornered, turned and shot Rosen 4 times (KR, for what it's worth had said previously that he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot looters)...KR said Rosen grabbed his gun, others said he tried to grab or swatted at it...unprovoked? people shooting in air? (one shot, trying to defuse the situation by scaring people off)...anyways, we disagree on this, agreed? I still feel KR put himself in this situation, was not "ready" for confrontations (which he had to have known would occur), and killed two people...did he mean to kill them? probably not, but two people are dead because of him...
Agree to Disagree...
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,326
2,404
1,743
Yeah, you would rather stick your head firmly in the sand when there are very different outcomes for people based on skin color in the US when controlling for other factors.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew...that you are a partisan hack that lacks objectivity.

Have a good day.
And that is the problem for some. They make everything a partisan issue.

There is NOT an inter-racial component of this trial. Rittenhouse (a white man) was chased down by several white men. A white man shot and killed two white men.

Your implication that Rittenhouse is treated differently because he is white while at the same time ignoring that the victims were also white is hypocritical. This is neither a partisan issue nor a racial issue - you are the one making them partisan and racial.