Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2028082)

He has bragged about his affiliations with white supremacists and the Proud Boys.

Originally Posted by DeanFL (Post 2028026)

.
.
omg, no idea what your comment means - and quite sexist. The guy is 18 and been through a very emotional trying experience. I didn't follow this case initially, but saw and read a lot about it during the trial. Seems to be very easy for those seeing only one side to make comments as this.

I saw an article that had a headline, Rittenhouse 'should get Actor of The Year award'. Typical by uninformed and biased media...

The more I saw of the trial so far, good chance the case will be dismissed due to the terrible Prosecution actions during this trial.
.
.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2028050)

It also works better when there are actual tears shed, and not just a Scott Baio Acting 101 Class demonstration.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2028082)

I'm sure that is true. However, so far no one has suggested, or announced, or proclaimed that this kid has been diagnosed with any such thing, or claimed that he's incapable of shedding tears.

And he has plenty of talent in "expression emotions." That blubber-fest would have been convincing, had there been tears.

He admitted to lying about his claim that he was an EMT. So we know he's fully capable of lying, and understands what lying means, and that he knows the difference between "misstating" something and flat out lying about something on purpose.

His mother drove him, while he was a minor child, over state lines with a semi-automatic weapon, for the express purpose of attending what he believed would be a riot (since, why else WOULD he bring a semi-automatic weapon with him over state lines)?

He knew he was going to a violent situation. He brought with him the means to kill people. He killed not someone, but two people. He maimed another. He has bragged about his affiliations with white supremacists and the Proud Boys on his own personal social media accounts, and the public has seen the publicized videos and photos of him exactly where he bragged that he was.

Whether he intended to kill the two VICTIMS, he killed them. They're dead, he's the one who pulled the trigger. They are victims of gun violence, whether it's murder or otherwise. He's not being charged with murder, he's being charged with homicide. He absolutely committed homicide.

Originally Posted by MDLNB (Post 2028108)

Glad he had a weapon to defend himself. "Homicide" by itself is NOT a charge. Manslaughter, as in voluntary or involuntary can be a charge or maybe even an "intentional homicide" or something similar, but homicide itself is just a classification that the person did not die of natural causes. Personally, I believe in CCW and think that anyone brandishing a weapon in a threatening manor toward another individual should expect that someone might just take it seriously and defend themselves. If I was attempting to assist my fellow neighbor and someone started beating me with or without a weapon, I might feel compelled to defend myself expeditiously. So far, I have not seen any testimony that indicated that he was hunting for someone to shoot, rather than someone to assist. But, I have not seen all the testimony. But, from what I have seen from the videos, even those that the prosecutor has shown, my original thought was that he was justified in responding with deadly force. But, that is my "professional" opinion.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2028267)

Yeah that judge is having trouble speaking coherently. The "news articles" that quote him aren't quoting him in full. They're heavily editing what he actually was saying, so that their readers can make sense of it.

He forbade anyone calling the victims of the shooting - victims. In medical terms, that's what they were. Victims. They didn't die of old age. They were victims of fatal wounds from gunshots. Just like someone who dies from cancer is a victim of cancer. And someone who falls off a ladder is a victim of a broken neck. Someone who is killed in a car crash is a victim of massive internal injuries.

Victim is a 100%valid word to use for someone who is dead as a result of a gunshot. But the judge wants to minimize the "victimhood" of the victims by forbidding the word.

It was okay to call the victims rioters or looters, if it could be proven that they were. He actually pro-actively stated as such. But he pre-emptively forbade the word "victim." Even if it could be proven they were victims, they aren't allowed to call them that and when one witnessed used the word in his testimony the judge went ballistic.

(I was watching this on Fox News, at the time, in case anyone REALLY and SINCERELY gives a crap)

He is gaslighting a trial he presides over.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2028281)

No. He wasn't injured, he isn't dead, and there is no living person from this event who has committed any crime against him. He is a victim perhaps of white supremacists, the proud boys, and his own mother. But at this particular event, at the riot where he admits he shot and killed two people? No. He's not a victim.

Originally Posted by John41 (Post 2028288)

Under cross examination by defense, the prosecution star witness testified he was chasing Rittenhouse with his Glock. His gun was pointed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse fired. Video from the FBI corroborates what Rittenhouse said about the shootings. A clear case of self defense when an angry mob is chasing you. The prosecution saw it was losing the case and tried for a mistrial by breaking constitutional protections so it could retry him.The judge gave a stern rebuke to the prosecutor calling him brazen. But the judge could declare a mistrial with prejudice, issue a directed verdict or nullify a guilty jury verdict because of jury intimidation. It’s all on video or live TV unedited

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2028301)

I think the word 'victim' used in any trial is biased against the accused person.
It infers that the defendant is the sole perpetrator before any evidence is offered to the contrary.
I do not think the word should be allowed to be used in any trial, before evidence of proof, or a conviction.
Been watching recordings of trial, and find whole thing riveting.
I also find it quite funny how those who would hang Mr Baldwin from a lamp post before trial, and those who defended him, are now diametrically apposed in this case.

JMTC.

Originally Posted by thevillages2013 (Post 2028323)

Two scumbags dead. Fire setting scumbags. If the authorities /police were allowed to do their jobs then this situation would never have occurred. Say what you want but the kid has some huge stones. And quite the marksman.