BLM was not there when this happened.
Rittenhouse
- Thread starter Al-O-Meter
- Start date
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
[DELETED]
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
LOL. He did. Rittenhouse would have had a 9mm hole in him if he hadn't. I do admire how quickly you switched gears from thinking Grosskreutz pointing a gun at Rittenhouse was a lie to now thinking Grosskreutz pointed a gun faster than Rittenhouse.
JazzyFresh
Banned
Logical thinking and flat out evidence is not OB strong suits.
He just pointed his gun at Rittenhouse for fun. He even admits Rittenhouse didn't pull the trigger until he was in danger but OB just doesn't have the common sense.
JazzyFresh
Banned
Kenosha: teen charged with murder after two Black Lives Matter protesters killed
He's just so dumb. How a human can get this dumb baffles my mind.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
It would seem based on testimony, neither of them are murderers.
In the larger context of things, I just have to believe there are funding operations and other high-level support for all the riots in "protected" zones where huge outside political contributions installed very very extreme political hacks in as prosecutors, where there was no or ineffective law enforcement that was applied to curtail the riots.
This means, considering the political funding or directions of various groups coming from the same or allied sources, really makes the specific about which group "was there" pretty irrelevant. The same people involved in our media perhaps aiding the political cause really means we do not have objective news and lacking other sources of information, we should be skeptical of what we are being "told"
Rittenhouse got huge negative reports in the "news" that has since been almost totally debunked by basically local fact-finders and people close to the facts who have made the effort to speak out.
He should not have even been prosecuted on the police or prosecuting attorney evidence.
Rioters were given aj pass to do everything they did, and there is still no will in the government to prosecute those lawbreakers. They are the real cause, the real guilty perps, responsible for everything..
This means, considering the political funding or directions of various groups coming from the same or allied sources, really makes the specific about which group "was there" pretty irrelevant. The same people involved in our media perhaps aiding the political cause really means we do not have objective news and lacking other sources of information, we should be skeptical of what we are being "told"
Rittenhouse got huge negative reports in the "news" that has since been almost totally debunked by basically local fact-finders and people close to the facts who have made the effort to speak out.
He should not have even been prosecuted on the police or prosecuting attorney evidence.
Rioters were given aj pass to do everything they did, and there is still no will in the government to prosecute those lawbreakers. They are the real cause, the real guilty perps, responsible for everything..
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
There were over 14,000 rioters arrested last summer though
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Avery
Well-Known Member
Like many 'stand your ground' and self-defense laws, I expect that the prosecution will not be able to definitively improve intent. That's not an easy thing to do in legal circles. Rittenhouse will likely be found not guilty based on that alone.
What he is guilty of his interjecting himself into a situation in which he had no formal training nor need to interject. That's not a criminal charge, but one of common sense. I have no doubt that he saw himself as trying to act as some protector, but that's not his place and he helped instigate further unrest where plenty of it could already be found.
For most of us, if you don't go looking for trouble, you're unlikely to stumble into it. Rittenhouse, much like the rioters that night, did not subscribe to that theory.
What he is guilty of his interjecting himself into a situation in which he had no formal training nor need to interject. That's not a criminal charge, but one of common sense. I have no doubt that he saw himself as trying to act as some protector, but that's not his place and he helped instigate further unrest where plenty of it could already be found.
For most of us, if you don't go looking for trouble, you're unlikely to stumble into it. Rittenhouse, much like the rioters that night, did not subscribe to that theory.
Except, as the testimony clearly says, Grosskreutz was already pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Grosskreutz.
Except, I never called it a lie. I said, "That picture doesn't show Grosskreutz's gun point toward Rittenhouse" and "sounds like a fantasy from a spaghetti Western". The very same testimony from Grosskreutz that establishes the gun being pointed also establishes that Rittenhouse pointed second.
That is Grosskreutz's testimony. If you don't believe him, than you have nothing left that clearly shows Grosskreutz pointing a gun at Rittenhouse at all.
Reading ordinary English is obviously out of your wheelhouse.
Evidence it was for fun?
Actually, you're currently agreeing with me against Al-O-Meter, who is saying Rittenhouse succeeded in aiming his gun first. Is that an example of your logical thinking?
I'm not going to pretend that I know why Rittenhouse brought a gun or what he thought he was accomplishing. You could be right.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
He's a kid. I think that often gets lost. He's a kid, and kids don't always make the best decisions. What I think is unconscionable is how Big Tech has conspired against him to ban any positive mention on their platforms, how GoFundMe shut down the effort to provide him a legal defense, how a Salt Lake City reporter sought to shut down any fundraising by using his platform on a TV station to shame a donor, nearly all media broadcasting a narrative that contained many falsehoods against him, how the President of the United States before the trial had happened said the evidence was overwhelming and wanted Rittenhouse quickly prosecuted. He's a kid.
Last edited:
Well, I can create a link that leads to more than an icon.
The BLM rallies were on August 24, during the day, and respected the 8pm curfew. The Rittenhouse shooting occurred at night, August 25, after 11:40pm.
IN PHOTOS: Black Lives Matter organization rallies in Kenosha
Click here to view this item from https://kenoshanews.com.
Very true. Maybe there wasn't a curfew after all. Do you have evidence, or are you JAQing off?
JAQ = "Just Asking Quastions"
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I've seen the video, blown up, in frame-by-frame slow motion, many, many times. Grosskreutz never got his gun trained on Rittenhouse. He thought he had an opening, came out of his hand-up stance, moved to point his gun at Rittenhouse, but got shot before the he got aimed. The photo I showed is as close as Grosskreutz ever got.
As far as the whole "re-racking" garbage, it never happened. Rittenhouse's gun never misfired. Rittenhouse never "re-racked" it to clear the misfire. That whole thing was a fiction. I know this because I know how guns work. If you "re-rack", that is to say pull back the charging handle, it ejects the unspent round to chamber a new one. It doesn't fix the cartridge to reinsert it so that now it will fire. It doesn't disintegrate the dud. Law Enforcement was very thorough, everything was cordoned off, especially the area were the shooting took place, and the evidence collection was performed. Where that supposed "re-rack" happened was where both Huber and Grosskreutz were shot. You know what Field Evidence Technicians didn't find? An unspent round! They have the brass from every shot Rittenhouse fired. There is no unspent round. There was no "re-rack". Either Grosskreutz was straight-up lying or Grosskreutz was mistaken and thought that was what Rittenhouse was doing which would explain why he thought he had an opening to shoot.
Last edited:
So, Grosskreutz lied in his testimony that he had his gun pointed at Rittenhouse?
So, Grosskreutz is lying to make Rittenhouse look better (by saying the gun was pointing at Rittenhouse when it wasn't)? That's your current position?
'I Lied' on Social Media: Former Roommate Says Gaige Grosskreutz Never Said His 'Only Regret Was Not Killing' Kyle Rittenhouse
A former roommate and friend of Gaige Grosskreutz testified that he lied on social media about a quote he attributed to Grosskreutz the day after Kyle Rittenhouse shot and wounded Grosskreutz in Aug. 2020. Grosskreutz was the only person who survived being shot by Rittenhouse; two others died.
lawandcrime.com
Didn't quite work out like you thought, eh? As usual, rather than admit error, you ignore it.
I had not seen this before. It lends some credence to GameFace's position on Rittenhouse, though not certainty.
Kyle Rittenhouse was recorded weeks before the Kenosha shooting saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS, prosecutors say
Kenosha prosecutors say a new video provides "crucial insight" into Kyle Rittenhouse's vigilante state of mind in summer 2020.
www.insider.com
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
It depends on what you mean by "pointed at". If you only believe a gun is pointed at someone if when the trigger is pulled the bullet would hit the person, then it didn't get there. If you believe aiming in the general direction, as opposed to aiming at the ground, aiming at the sky, etc, then it was. The litmus test is the photo. That is as close as it got. If that is pointing at Kyle then it is. If you don't think that is pointing at Kyle then it isn't.
Grosskreutz didn't say what he did to help Rittenhouse. Just the opposite. Grosskreutz is trying to claim his loaded gun didn't represent a threat to Rittenhouse because if it had then he would have fired. Much like the phantom "re-rack", it is a fiction belied by the evidence.
That is true. It didn't. I don't know why if the roommate was going to recant what he said, that he would be a defense witness.