Ignorant question from me re:trial

[Dirty Socialist]

If he felt threatened, why did he shoot the VICTIM in the back? Maybe I’m ignorant, but I had to ask.

[Sympthsical]

1. Body moved as it fell

They were fairly rapid shots.

The first shot, victim's hand was outstretched - Kyle says touching the gun. Then bam bam bam as Rosenbaum fell.

Not unusual. Bodies rotate as they're hit by force.

[Dirty Socialist]

2. Huh

Interesting

[dpibel]

8. You truly have a story for everything, don't you?

"bam bam bam"

You can almost feel it, can't you?

[Sympthsical]

10. I'm a fan of facts

It always bothers me when narratives overtake objective facts and logic.

Something about this case has just insinuated itself to be utterly impervious to examination of what actually happened. I am fascinated by how thoroughly extremely and provably wrong things have remained resistant to correction.

If presenting facts bothers someone enough where they have to then create an idea about the person presenting the facts, well, I can't control that.

It's just another symptom of the circumstance I'm outlining. Every time I say, "Here's what we have evidence for," and the response is to imply I'm a right-winger who wanted people to die, the more my point is proven.

You didn't reply to the discussion. You just insulted me. Probability says, it looks better for me.

[dpibel]

14. "Bam bam bam" isn't facts

You're presenting, "the body rotated as it fell" as fact.

It's not.

It's your exculpatory opinion of what might have happened.

You're good. But not, actually, as good as you think.

[WHITT]

12. Well

the drone video shows Kyle was lying about him touching the gun.

Not to mention, quite separately, everybody assumed Rittenhouse was an active shooter, soon to be mass shooter, so they were trying to stop him and shut him down. Obviously you would utilize whatever was available, skateboard, handgun, anything.

[Sympthsical]

13. The pathologist said something similar

That, based on the autopsy, Rosenbaum's hand was either close to or touching the muzzle. The drone video has him reaching towards the gun with his left hand. So, close or touching sounds right.

Yeah, it's messy. Because I do think the second two victims thought that were trying to stop an active shooter. They have no idea why Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. They just know there's someone with a gun shooting. So they go after him.

But in a self-defense case, the defendant's state of mind is the important bit. Does he believe he's imminent in danger of serious harm? With the second two, you have him getting kicked in the face and beaten with a skateboard. Hard to say he wasn't feeling under bodily threat. The third guy, forget it. He pointed a gun as soon as the rifle was moved away. No one's going to convict there.

It's just a shitty situation. People are dead. It's a trial, so ya gotta go where the law is about it.

[WHITT]

15. Rittenhouse

is lying and reversing events. He claims Rosenbaum tried to grab his gun, so he shot him, but clearly Rittenhouse pointed an assault weapon at Rosenbaum at close range, and he was attempting to grab it, or push it aside, or somehow deflect it. Rosenbaum was acting in SELF-DEFENSE.

...you have him getting kicked in the face and beaten with a skateboard. Hard to say he wasn't feeling under bodily threat.

But he just shot and killed someone. You lose the imprimatur of self-defense once you criminally murder someone.

The third guy, forget it. He pointed a gun as soon as the rifle was moved away.

Of course. I know it's bullshit, but as the NRA sez, a good guy with a gun trying to stop a bad guy with a gun, who just shot and killed someone.

[Yarnie]

18. I don't think it's possible to know

what Rosenbaum's motivation in touching the gun actually was. And he had previously threatened to kill KR, so there's that.

[WHITT]

19. Hmmmm

I don't think it's possible to know what Rosenbaum's motivation in touching the gun actually was.

What is the natural reaction when somebody points the tip of an assualt rifle at you at close range?

...he had previously threatened to kill KR

A fact not in evidence. Only according to Rittenhouse and his supporters, but Rosenbaum isn't around to refute it. As the Church Lady used to say, 'How Conveeeeeeenient!'.

[Yarnie]

21. It was testimony,

and I don't know if it can be discounted, just because it was from KR's friends. I don't know how that works.

[WHITT]

22. I Know It Was Testimony

but Rosenbaum isn't around to refute it. Damn convenient. Should have been challenged as hearsay.

[Yarnie]

23. Is it "hearsay"

when the person who heard it testifies to it?

[WHITT]

25. Well

In-court testimony from an under-oath witness reciting an out-of-court statement is hearsay.

[Hav]

26. Reciting as in reciting what someone else said, not like in this case testimony

from the actual source that can be questioned by the defense.
Otherwise every testimony would be hearsay.

[WHITT]

28. The Claimed "Source" Is Dead

[Hav]

30. I was just about to add an edit to my post before your reply

Sometimes I'm slow, it took me some time to understand your point and honestly I'm confused regarding the law (because I'm not a lawyer). I now understand that your hearsay referred to what Rosenbaum said and not to the witness on stand. But it seems the defense would know better when to object to that or not.

[WHITT]

31. You'd Think They Would

There are hearsay rules however. But would it have hurt to challenge? Might have influenced the jury.

[Zeitghost]

33. Rosenbaum

Rosenbaum was chasing KR who was retreating. This is on video.

A prosecution witness testified to the threats made by Rosenbaum.

You can't threaten to kill someone, chase them down as they retreat and then try to grab their rifle and not create a legal self defense situation for the other person.

[Sympthsical]

20. I'm sorry, you just have this whole first part wrong.

Rosenbaum, who threatened to kill others previously, was the pursuer of Rittenhouse. It is not self-defense if you are pursuing someone who has not threatened you. He was chasing Rittenhouse before a gun was pointed at him. This is on video. Further down you say you disbelieve this. However, there is plenty of testimony under oath to this and video of Rosenbaum behaving very aggressively. You're just dismissing evidence to make a characterization fit. You can do that - but the jury can't. Nor will they. The second and last time he turns, it's because there are gunshots close to him. Rosenbaum is going for him at that point.

Rosenbaum is just plain not defending himself. He's aggressive, making threats, and chasing someone. Rittenhouse is attempting to retreat from him. At that point, there is no reason for Rosenbaum to behave as he does.

The whole case hinges on the first shooting. If Rosenbaum is self-defense, then the other two shootings that follow can be in self-defense. If it's not, then what you noted comes into play - it's not self-defense in the commission of a crime.

The FBI video has completely destroyed the narrative on Rosenbaum. The prosecutor lied during the opening statement. He said Rittenhouse pursued Rosenbaum. We have clear as day video evidence that is not the case.

[WHITT]

29. I Disagree

[Takket]

32. here's a link to the video, for discussion's sake

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/enhanced-drone-footage-shows-first-two-fatal-shootings-kyle-rittenhous-rcna5094

It starts about 15 seconds in.

[Catherine Vincent]

3. Sorry to hijack your thread but

I want to know why his defenders are calling the victims pedophiles?

[Dirty Socialist]

4. Really?

It must be coming from the Donald J Trump school of “say anything”

[Sympthsical]

5. The first one, Rosenbaum, was

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/11/joseph-rosenbaum-sex-offender/

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.

[dpibel]

9. Kyle prolly knew that, huh?

He was actually out pedophile huntin' and he got one.

I mean, if a fella can't shoot a pedophile, then what's this country come to.

Or, to put it in real terms: This has exactly what to do with the issues at trial?

[Sympthsical]

11. It was an answer to the poster's question

They asked why Kyle's defenders were calling the victim a pedophile. I provided an answer.

The man's past crimes have zero relevance to the trial. And it's immaterial to whether or not it's self-defense. Only the behaviors at that time count.

[Solomon]

24. So was he charged or convicted?

[Sympthsical]

27. Of the sex offenses? Yes.

But it's not relevant to what happened that night.

[Hoyt]

6. Just looked and found a Snopes' discussion, assuming they are trustworthy.

One of victims was convicted of sex crimes. Both the others had different legal issues.

Not relative to case, though. I assume judge has prohibited that as well.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. Thanks, didn't know that

And you're right, it's not relevant to the trial.

[WHITT]

16. King James

Link to tweet

[pfitz59]

17. at 0:31 he side-eyes the jury

then goes into his biggest blubbery moment