There is no need to find a person innocent. They have an automatic presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, which effectively remains intact if they are acquitted.
Neither left, nor right. Just the facts. This place should be called blocksky. The art of conversation is dead.
33 followers 10 following 1,281 posts
view profile on Bluesky
There is no need to find a person innocent. They have an automatic presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, which effectively remains intact if they are acquitted.
He was carrying a widely available, civilian specification rifle. Would you refer to a pistol as a weapon of war? They are carried as a sidearm. It’s just rhetoric, man, to make it sound far more dangerous and thus heinous. Come on.
You probably weren’t alone in a potentially hostile situation like he was either, where human nature makes people feel like they need back-up and support. You talk a lot about empathy, but struggle to see why a 17 year old who had just been jumped and had shot that person might phone his friend.
He wasn’t given the chance to shoot. What empathy was Rittenhouse supposed to have? He reasonably believed that doing so was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, remember?
Also, I wouldn't give too much credit to Gaige Grosskreutz / Paul Prediger's apparent benevolence. He wishes that he had shot Rittenhouse, and has made several comments about that since, both to his buddy Jacob Marshall in the hospital, and directly. He was just too slow.
He testified that he called the first number in his recent calls list, which happened to be Dominick Black as Black had called him moments earlier to send him down to 63rd street to the reported Duramax on fire. Why is that ‘bad’? Do you not suppose he could well have been in shock?
It was a semi-automatic rifle, to civilian specification, not a weapon of war. It is not inherently immoral that he was in possession of it, even at a riot. What he did with it is what must be judged as good or bad. It is not ‘bad’ that he wanted the means to protect himself from potential violence.
Rittenhouse was never witnessed provoking people, goading them, antagonizing, threatening anyone, pointing his gun at anyone, trying to start an argument or a fight, looking for any excuse to shoot. Nothing. So I am struggling to see what the supposed immorality of his conduct actually was.
The Khindris, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting of Jacob Blake, had lost a fortune in uninsured stock to rampaging idiots. It is not difficult to see why they might have reached out to Nick Smith to watch the properties on night three.
I wouldn’t either, but in terms of a moral argument, what did he do that was immoral? It was naive maybe, and unwise, but immoral? Those civilians who descended on Kenosha in a bid to defend property did so because of what they saw as the unjustified destruction of peoples’ livelihoods.
Then, let’s be fair, in the absence of any evidence, he gets the benefit of the doubt, particularly in court. Agreed?
No, but I would support his right to defend himself if he did.
One theory is that Rosenbaum may have mistakenly identified Rittenhouse as this similarly dressed and equipped individual, who Rosenbaum had tried to fight at the gas station earlier and had to be restrained.
Opportunity. None of the others got caught alone like Rittenhouse did. It was just one of those fateful encounters. Bad luck, even. Incidentally, Rosenbaum had already tried to fight the armed people at the gas station when they extinguished his dumpster fire that he was pushing toward it.
Correct. It was. Rosenbaum had already threatened that he would kill him and Ryan Balch if he caught either of them alone, according to Balch's testimony. The street level footage, drone footage and FBI footage showed that Rittenhouse turned up at 63rd street, and was ambushed by him immediately.
The Chicago CVS video comment to Dominick Black about what he thought were armed robbers inside was made on Monday August 10th. Jacob Blake wasn’t shot by police until Sunday August 23rd, thirteen days later, and that was when the riots started. The shootings were two days later on the 25th.
This is not "hanging around". Who would hang around with the armed Josh Ziminski yelling at people to "Cranium that man" ?
Hung around is a strange way to describe it. He is on video running from the scene at 63rd street and is captured in entirety running north on Sheridan Road in a bid to reach the police line at 60th. He was attacked again on Sheridan between 62nd and 61st street. Didn't you watch the trial?
And, with respect, if there is evidence, then why not present it? It is a really old debating deflection tactic when people make a claim of evidence, but decline to present it with the caveat of "You would only dismiss my evidence". How do you know if I haven't seen what you propose?
There was no evidence that Rittenhouse had ever owned the rifle or had ever kept it. Black testified that he bought the rifle in his name on May 1st and that it was kept at his address in Kenosha. He still owned that gun when it was destroyed in 2022, and had to sign off on its destruction.
All the evidence of the shootings was exculpatory. There was nothing to suggest that he acted unlawfully. There was nothing in the videos or witness testimony that hurt his case for self-defense under WI s.939.48. Why do you think critics ignore this and focus on "He never should have been there" ?
On a street where dozens of people are already armed with rifles and other guns, why would the sight of one more cause any significant alarm? Nobody cared that he had a rifle. Lots of people had rifles. He was jumped by a lunatic who had already been hostile and trying to fight people. 🤷🏻♂️
Rosenbaum had already threatened to kill him. Was it realistic to expect Rittenhouse to just give up the gun to this individual? What about get into a fight over the gun? The jury had the insight to conclude that shooting to prevent Rosenbaum getting that rifle in those circumstances was reasonable.
It wasn't exactly a normal day out.
You are free to believe what you like. All I am saying is that there was no evidence. That is just a fact.
Anyway, it has been a good chat. We disagree fundamentally and likely always will on this issue. But you have been civil and more importantly, haven't hit the damn block button. 😜 Have a great weekend. 👍
But you must surely agree that if an individual threatened to kill me and tried to grab any gun I held, without provocation from me, it would not be unreasonable for me to believe that he might be serious?
At least you concede that they should not have attacked him. That was the entire foundation of his claim of self-defense being accepted, and the jury determining that he did not commit the crime of murder.
The parameters are the circumstances and the law. The circumstances were that three individuals attacked Rittenhouse to the point where his belief the force he used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable. Which is what the law requires.
Those guys could have always just not attacked him.
None of the others were ambushed whilst alone by the idiot who had threatened to kill him if he caught him alone, and who grabbed for his rifle. I would bet my house that had Rosenbaum done that to any of the other armed individuals, his fate would have been the same.
With respect, that still doesn't answer the question. I get why it is tricky to answer. One can make arguments all day about whether he should have been there, but the fact is, he was, and he was jumped by Rosenbaum, which kicked the whole thing off.
It depends on context. Had he been the only person there who showed up with an AR-15, then sure, it might cause alarm. But there were so many openly armed people in Kenosha over the three nights of unrest, many carrying similar rifles, that any suggestion he was conspicuous doesn't hold water.
It's okay. I asked whether a violent individual who had threatened to kill a person and was trying to grab that person's gun would give that person a reasonable belief that the threat was serious. I think it does, regardless of wider opinion on gun culture.
Well he was never witnessed trying to arrest or detain anybody, give lawful orders or hand out any penalties. Acting as private security, of any kind, is not vigilantism.
It is a shame that you had to deflect also, instead of debating in good faith and answering the question I put to you.
Also, brandishing is an unlawful act. It typically describes the act of unlawfully displaying a weapon in whole or in part with the intent to threaten or intimidate another person. That is distinct from mere open carry of firearms, which is quite lawful in Wisconsin.
He was never a vigilante. A vigilante is a person who assumes the role of law enforcement without proper authority. He was never witnessed trying to enforce the law. He was trying to guard private property, and was also witnessed administering some basic medical aid.
I'm not down for shooting anyone either, but if some hostile lunatic threatened to kill me and then tried to grab my rifle, it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to believe that he might mean it if he gets the gun. Fair?
The point was, at four unanimous not guilty verdicts decided quickly and one at 9-3 in favor of acquittal until the flip, the chances of any conviction were always unrealistic. There is a good reason DA Mike Gravely passed on prosecuting it, as did his deputy Carli McNeill and prosecutor Jason Zapf.
You asked the question, I am just giving you the answer. Don't shoot the messenger. It was lawful for him to have the rifle and it was lawful for him to use it in self-defense.
According to the juror, who was one of the holdouts, the three dissenters had agreed to each prepare a presentation as to why the shooting of Rosenbaum was unlawful. That juror reconsidered after examining the evidence and the law again overnight and persuaded the other two the next morning.
Three jurors who were leaning towards guilty on the first shooting, according to Rittenhouse's attorney who spoke to a juror immediately after the verdicts came in. The other four not guilty verdicts came to them quite quickly, but there were three holdouts on Count 1 right up until the last day.
None. But unlike Rittenhouse, neither of them were attacked by the lunatic who had already threatened to kill him if he caught him alone.
Erick Jordan was in Kenosha on the night of the shootings with his, then 16 year old, daughter Jade. Like Rittenhouse, they were guarding property nearby, and were also armed with semi-automatic rifles. They are seen here guarding protesters outside the Kenosha courthouse during the trial.
There was no evidence to suggest that the shootings were not self-defense. The whole thing was captured on video and was eye-witnessed. The state had no viable case for unlawful murder, and had no realistic prospect of the jury coming to a unanimous conviction. 🤷♂️
He was there because he and Dominick Black had been asked just hours earlier by Nick Smith, if they could help to guard the Car Source business for Smith's employers, the Khindris. Many other armed people had descended on Kenosha to do the same. The shootings were in self-dense, to WI s.939.48.
The self-defense statute only cares whether the person claiming self-defense after a use of deadly force reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. It is a narrow enquiry. State lines and known conflicts are not really relevant.
I think a lot of people were, and still are, under the same assumption, but there was no evidence to suggest that he ever pointed the rifle at anybody prior to pointing it at Rosenbaum, who was chasing him across the parking lot. The prosecutor was unable to provide any evidence of provocation. 🤷♂️
It was not unlawful to protect property. It was not unlawful to be armed whilst protecting property. It is only unlawful to use deadly force to protect property. That crucial distinction between shooting to protect property and shooting to defend himself formed a prominent part of the trial.
That might be the intent of the exception to s.948.60 but the way it is worded, it does not actually mandate that the person under 18 be in possession of a hunter’s safety certificate for the exception to apply, and that is what was argued. Technicality? Maybe, but one that has not been corrected.
A refusal to engage with people like that should not be taken as tacit approval or acceptance of anything. I just don’t get into it with them. 🤷🏻♂️
I have had self-styled Nazis and people with really extreme views complimenting me and jumping into my comments on twitter. I generally don’t engage with them. They will always find a way to justify their views regardless so it is easier to just ignore them completely.
It was at Black’s address because it was Black’s gun. There was no evidence that Rittenhouse ever owned it, nor any that he had ever taken it to Illinois or possessed it there. There was no evidence that he had even seen or handled it after the weekend that it was purchased in May until August 25th.
They are your claims. It is customary for the accuser of any wrongdoing to bring the evidence for it, not the other way around.
Until the law dictates that carrying a gun is unlawful, then being in possession of one and being in fear that a violent lunatic (who has threatened to kill you already) is going to take it from you is not that unreasonable. Nobody is obliged to take a beating, as this idiot also tried to assert.
You don't know. You can surmise, but is just conjecture. Nobody knows what would have happened or what would not have happened. There are an infinite number of possibilities.
I'll tell you why, because those other folks weren't alone. Even ex-marine Jason Lackowski, who thought of Rosenbaum as a babbling idiot, had to concede on the witness stand that had he found himself in Rittenhouse's position, things might have been different.
You don't know that he wouldn't have been targeted. Nobody does. It is conjecture. Nobody can say that Rosenbaum wouldn't have attacked had Rittenhouse turned up with just the extinguisher. It is just as likely that he would, especially given his conduct, character and form for attacking minors.
Rosenbaum wasn't a particularly big guy, but he had done ten years in prison. His prison record showed that he had assaulted people whilst incarcerated. He was violent, belligerent and suicidal, with apparently little to lose. And you are upset because a minor that he attacked wouldn't fight him?
I watched the trial in full, plus all the pre-trial hearings, plus I have put hours and hours of research into the Kenosha shootings, including contact with the people involved. There was no evidence to support any of the claims in this multi-part thread of yours.
And again, you are ignoring the context. Scores of people were in Kenosha openly armed with rifles. Nobody gave him a second look. He wasn’t conspicuous.
They tried that once and it didn’t go too well for them.
Everybody has a right to expect not to be attacked in the street if they are not doing anything unlawful. You cannot just attack somebody because you don’t like the cut of their jib, or because you think they are asking for it. Come on.
PS - Don’t shoot the messenger. This is all just information which is in the public domain. 🤷🏻♂️
Lastly, Black's felony charges under WI s.948.60 (2)(c) were effectively voided by two facts. The first is that the person under 18 was not unlawfully in possession of the dangerous weapon, as ruled at Rittenhouse's trial, and second, the deaths caused were also judged to be lawful.
There wasn't any evidence to suggest that this was a federal straw purchase either. Black's declaration that he was the actual buyer / transferee when he filled out the 4473 at purchase was never false, as he always was the transferee. He never transferred the gun to Rittenhouse, or anyone else.
Black was never charged under Wisconsin's "Straw purchasing of firearms" statute WI s.941.2905. The reason for that is because it is only a Class G felony if the person furnishes, possess or purchases a firearm for somebody knowing that they are prohibited from possessing one under s.941.29 (1m)
Dominick Black was never charged with anything in connection with the purchase of the rifle, which was purchased in Ladysmith, WI, on May 1st 2020. He was charged that he did "intentionally give a dangerous weapon to a person under 18, causing death" on Aug 25th 2020, the day of the shootings.
The prosecutor had to concede at pre-trial that he had no evidence that the defendant had any links to, was a member of, or even knew of the Proud Boys or any other group on or before Aug 25th 2020. The photo was taken four months after the shootings, hence its inadmissibility at trial.
There was no evidence that either Rittenhouse or Dominick Black had any intention of being in Kenosha to guard property before being asked by Nick Smith who, according to Smith’s testimony, only contacted Black about it on the morning of the 25th, just hours before the shootings.
The rifle had been purchased lawfully three months prior by Dominick Black, who owned and kept it at his address. It was never Rittenhouse’s gun. It was intended to be, in January 2021 when Rittenhouse turned 18, but that transfer never happened, ultimately. Black always owned it.
The rifle was not illegally purchased.
It isn’t a trope, it is just a basic fact. He had spent seven hours in and among the rioters and protesters without incident until he got jumped by a violent idiot who had been threatening to kill people, including Rittenhouse, and who had been acting violently and belligerently towards others.
He went with Dominick Black because they were asked to defend property. That was not, by itself, provocation. Even in that context, he had right of expectation not to be attacked in the street. There was nothing to suggest that he ever did anything to Joseph Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was a lunatic.
There is nothing immoral about use of force in self-defense or defense of others. It has never been immoral, not in any society nor at any point in history to my knowledge. Self-preservation and the will to survive is our most base instinct, hence why it is enshrined in common law universally.
Again, you are lumping me in with Republicans. I get that it is easier to convince yourself of your own righteousness if you ascribe all opposing opinion to that of what you view as the source of all life's ills right now, but that is nothing to do with me. I dislike Trump as much as anyone.
Who were the dipshits who set fire to Kenosha following?
Trump again, eh? 🙄
And to answer your question. No, I would not endorse my son to be at a riot. However, if he was at one and encountered a violent individual like Rosenbaum, I would support him defending himself against violence by any lawful means necessary. Wouldn't you?
Rittenhouse did not take the gun across state lines. He was already in Kenosha, as he had stayed at Dominick Black's place the night prior. Black was the owner of the rifles and kept them at his address. Rittenhouse's mother believed that he was hanging out with Black, she didn't "allow" anything.
Why are you so insistent on dragging me into arguments about Donald Trump? He has nothing to do with this. I am not playing this game of whataboutism with you. I have no interest in the guy or his legal issues.
The self-defense law is what it is, and to reiterate, the judge had no authority to add a requirement to WI s.948.60 that was not there. In any ambiguous legislation, the rule of lenity would always ensure that the benefit went to the defendant anyway. How is that mental gymnastics?
And yes, my acquittal would be true to the letter of the law,, because self-defense is a narrow enquiry. The legality of use of force in self-defense concerns itself primarily with the immediately adjacent circumstances. All the peripheral theater about crossing state lines etc etc, was irrelevant.
What does MAGA have to do with it? Have I ever once expressed support for MAGA or Donald Trump? It is just a cop out for you people so that you can all rationalize views that don’t align with your own. How did Rittenhouse create the conditions for the incident? By existing? Crazy.
You could always prove me wrong rather than just make lame quips. 🤷🏻♂️ Oh wait, of course you can’t. 🤦🏻♂️
Imagine thinking that there was even a case to try. It didn’t surprise me to hear that both Wisconsin’s superstar DA Mike Gravely and his deputy Carli McNeill both declined to prosecute it, or that prosecutor Jason Zapf quit the DA’s office rather than take it on.
Lame effort. The Kenosha shootings were not a whodunnit like OJ Simpson’s 30yo murder case. The shootings were on video, witnessed and even admitted to as being intentional by the defendant. The jury only had to give their verdict on whether the defendant’s belief and conduct were reasonable.
Do you have any evidence of provocation? The State sure as heck didn’t.
Not one mention in all that about how the individuals shot had attacked Rittenhouse without provocation. Nor how the shootings were ultimately judged to be lawful self-defense, and not the crime of murder.
That is a wider argument than whether his possession of the rifle was unlawful or not. Your verdict is your prerogative of course. I would have acquitted him on all charges, as his belief the force used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable.
Yes, I think much of his post-trial endeavors have been extremely ill-advised. To balance that though, his prospects were curtailed by people who actively sought to organize protests and boycotts against prospective employers and education institutions. And he has expensive legal bills to foot.
I suspect that had Joseph Rosenbaum gone for any of the other armed individuals the way he went for Rittenhouse after catching him alone, his fate would have been largely the same. He was just asking to be shot by way of his violent conduct, and I mean that figuratively as well as literally.
The loved ones of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber have to accept that both men, for varying reasons, attacked an armed teen without provocation. A teen who had legal privilege to use his firearm to defend himself. Their deaths are their fault, as unpalatable as that may seem to them, and you.
Anybody familiar with my commentary on the Kenosha shootings would probably agree that I don’t typically accuse people of deliberately lying. This case was one of those that became riddled with media misinformation, which was never corrected, leaving those with only a casual interest misinformed.
Thank you for being a civil adult with a gracious response. It is very rare these days. 👍🏻
As in any jurisdiction, the circumstances dictate whether murder charges apply. Contrary to popular belief, the Crown Prosecution Service is not wont to charging people who defend themselves, even with deadly force. Guns are not permitted for self-defense, so ready access to one is impractical.
These are the three individuals that were shot by Rittenhouse. Also, his mother did not drive him to Kenosha. She actually had nothing to do with it, contrary to popular belief.
Beautiful place. I travelled through the Canadian Rockies some years ago, and stopped at Moraine Lake, Lake Louse and Athabasca Glacier. The scenery is stunning.