Sorry, the guy who didn’t die. It was recorded on his phone.

Sorry, the guy who didn’t die. It was recorded on his phone. — I like sushi

That was the paramedic.

If R had only pointed his weapon at an active shooter and was there to give medical aid, yeah exactly the same. — Kenosha Kid

I meant they were the same in that they both contributed to the potential for disaster in the same way: rushing toward a volatile situation with a firearm.

Sorry, the guy who didn’t die. It was recorded on his phone. — I like sushi

It's good to hear that somebody didn't die. That's very encouraging.

It's good to hear that somebody didn't die. That's very encouraging. — frank

Shittenhouse's only regret.

Three fourths of the time.

I meant they were the same in that they both contributed to the potential for disaster in the same way: rushing toward a volatile situation with a firearm. — frank

Not in every instance. Rittenhouse was running away danger and going to the police (in this specific instance a mob actively trying to stop him - someone shouting "you're gonna die!"). The other took out his gun and rushed in. He was apparently concerned for Rittenhouse and knew he was going to he police - maybe he was. I wouldn't call going to the protest in the first place 'rushing toward a volatile situation'.

Gauge also admits that Rittenhouse didn't shoot until he had his handgun pointed at him. He also states that he pointed his gun at him before Rittenhouse fired. He claims that he thought Rittenhouse tried to shoot him when he had his hands raised but then needed to reload. Maybe he did think that.

Rittenhouse was running away danger and going to the police (in this specific instance a mob actively trying to stop him - someone shouting "you're gonna die!"). The other took out his gun and rushed in. — I like sushi

This isn't even remotely close to anyone's testimony.

It is. One mistake is he had his gun out already then rushed into a dangerous situation with gun in hand looking to help Rittenhouse.

It is not like it is hard to listen to Gauge answering questions and look at the evidence presented. It is all there for anyone to view.

Rittenhouse just barely missed getting a Darwin Award. :grimace:

:grin:

Rittenhouse just barely missed getting a Darwin Award. :grimace: — frank

Now he's Simba on his way to Musafa. GOP Representatives want to hire him as an intern and he's hailed as a hero among the right wing. I guess that is how Darwin works. The left might take note.

Reply — James Riley

A hero or a martyr to the right depending on the verdict. Lose-lose I suppose.

:100: And passing on his mother's genes, either way.

It’s a funny video, and quite apt. There is something addictive about owning and firing guns. I suppose it could resemble an epidemic in a way, but when the satire comes from a people who require strict paternal supervision when it comes to such weaponry, it falls a bit flat in my eyes.

No point addressing this to you particularly, just for the record, but your timeline of events was a work of fiction.

First off, R was running away from the group chasing him, and stopped running to shoot one of them. So they chased him again. The person he shot was unarmed.

R ran into a crowd but word spread that he'd murdered someone, and he was chased by another unarmed man who struck him to the ground. R murdered that unarmed guy too.

The only armed person who confronted R was the paramedic trying to attend to his second victim, who correctly believed R to be an active shooter.

Your version of events isn't remotely in line with the facts.

R was running away from the group chasing him — Kenosha Kid

If they'd left him alone a tragedy might have been averted.

Our idea is that everybody requires strict parental supervision when handling such weaponry, or at least has some kind of permit, attesting to their mental health, professional capacity etc. As I pointed out to you the murder rate in the US is at least 5 times of that in the Netherlands. And no NOS, that is not a good thing. In general yes, we think indeed assault rifles are safest in the hands of professionals. Actually we think the same about law...

edit: the last remark was a snipe at the jury system, not anyone at the forum.

If they'd left him alone a tragedy might have been averted. — frank

Or maybe they averted a greater tragedy.

Like I said anyone can choose to watch the account given by Gauge. It is easily accessible. If you wish to omit certain points to suit your own version not my problem. I was just commenting on what Frank said and telling him what I saw and heard by watching the Gauge on the stand.

It’s true, high murder rates are not a good thing, but neither is a monopoly on violence, the inability to equalize force, the inability to defend one’s property, an so on. At each step, from the shooting of Jason Blake onward, the professionals failed in Wisconsin. Frankly, I would much rather take my chances.

To add I actually gave a balanced account that included claims from Gauge. You have, on the other hand, gone out of your way to paint the picture you believe in.

Anything and everything you say here I cannot trust and I don’t think anyone else should either if they are trying to view this case with balance and reason.

Instances:

First off, R was running away from the group chasing him, and stopped running to shoot one of them. So they chased him again. The person he shot was unarmed. — Kenosha Kid

Well, no. I was referring to the instance of Gauge because that was what was specifically being talked about.

Yes, he was being chased. Why? He slowly and pointed his gun to deter the first person. They kept on coming at him. In fact they got right up to him before he fired. There was also a gunshot fired from behind the guy running at him before Rittenhouse fired.

Yes, the guy was unarmed. Also, he was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and charging him without any indication that he was going to stop. To repeat he didn’t fire until he was directly upon him. Given his state of mind. Running headlong at someone armed with a rifle during a protest (a protest where a small minority of people were throwing rocks at the police and setting fire to dumpsters and smashing property: added to show the potential volatility of the situation). It doesn’t take much to view - in R’s situation - the actions of someone running directly at him, vocally threatening to kill him, not ceasing to pursue after he had had a gun pointed at him, and getting to within reach of the rifle as an immanent threat to his life.

We can certainly question if the guy threatening to kill him meant it. In rage and adrenaline fuelled situations where a complete stranger is involved and openly threatens to kill you, runs at you, and follows when you run away, it isn’t a massive stretch to think that if such a person got hold of your gun he’d turn it on you. Maybe he wouldn’t have, perhaps the chances that he would’ve shot Rittenhouse or ‘craniumed’ him were small. Who really put themselves into an extremely dangerous and fatal situation? Rittenhouse by simply ‘being there’ like many others or someone, unarmed, running after someone with a gun and openly threatening to kill them?

If Rittenhouse had been shot and killed it would’ve been murder. The reason Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with murder is because it wasn’t murder in the eyes of the law. Nor was it against the law for him to openly carry the weapon he was carrying. Nor was it against the law for him to walk around in the street practically alone in those circumstances (it was damn stupid though).

If we look at this as someone willingly running into an situation were their life was in immediate and severe danger and were to ask which person was doing this in this situation it is a no brainer. Was the force used excessive? There is certainly a case there as firing four shots a point blank range clearly sounds excessive. The only real defence here is that he was fearing for his life and panicked.

Excessive force is a point to argue here as far as I can see. The fact that he shot the guy in self defence would be much stronger if he’d merely fired one shot.

Maybe Rittenhouse and fellows had planned this out? Seems unlikely. Maybe they had talked about it and wanted to shoot some people they viewed as reprehensible? Speculation is mere speculation though. When speculation is cast as ‘evidence’ there is a problem.

Next part of the ‘false narrative’ I gained from actually watching the trial.

R ran into a crowd but word spread that he'd murdered someone, and he was chased by another unarmed man who struck him to the ground. R murdered that unarmed guy too. — Kenosha Kid

You’re omitting what you referred to as a ‘false narrative’. If you actually listen to Gauge’s account - and his phone recording - Gauge asks Rittenhouse where he is going (after he had shot the first person). Rittenhouse said he was going to the police and ran towards the police as a ‘mob’ was beginning to form and people were starting to shout “get him!” and someone said “Cranium him!” (Gauge himself heard the ‘get him threats and said this on the stand as well as saying that after reviewing recordings he had also heard ‘cranium him’ shouted). In the video played in caught you can hear while Rittenhouse is on the ground someone shout “you’re gonna die!”.

You’re also making this sound like it was one or two people pursuing him by saying ‘he was chased by another unarmed man who struck him to the ground’ which doesn’t account for the group of people pursuing him and he wasn’t ‘struck to the ground’ by the unarmed man. This is just wrong.

What happened - and what was actually shown in court - was a group was pursuing him, throwing rocks and had hit him to the point where he fell down. Gauge from 30 feet away (by his estimation) then said he wanted to help Rittenhouse so he took his gun out of his belt and ran to catch up with Rittenhouse with gun in hand. Gauge saw Jump-kick man but didn’t see the actual jump kick only this person ‘going over Rittenhouse’ is how he put it I think?

The only armed person who confronted R was the paramedic trying to attend to his second victim, who correctly believed R to be an active shooter. — Kenosha Kid

He wasn’t trying to get to the second person who was shot. That is simply wrong. Gauge said he was concerned for Rittenhouse’s safety due to head trauma (as he had been hit in the head with rock/s and a skateboard). As I said before once he was close to Rittenhouse with his gun in hand he raised his hands when Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at him. Now here is where Gauge believed Rittenhouse had tried to shoot him even when he’d raised his hands as he then tried to reload his weapon. Gauge says he viewed this as he had pulled the trigger and nothing happened so he then reloaded. Gauge then says this is the reason he closed the space between himself and Rittenhouse. As Gauge moved towards Rittenhouse he ended up in a position where his gun was pointing at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fired when Gauge’s gun was pointed at him (and Gauge confirmed this openly in court).

All in all it is quite quite silly to say:

No point addressing this to you particularly, just for the record, but your timeline of events was a work of fiction. — Kenosha Kid

I did actually go back and review Gauge’s account to see if I’d made some error. Other than not being explicit that I was talking about Gauge (who didn’t know what had happened with the first four shots fired and says so in court) I think it is untrue to say my brief remarks are a ‘fiction’ when you then go on to say things yourself that are misguided in terms of giving a clear account of what happened.

To repeat, the evidence is available online. Anyone can watch the trial and the actual account of the witnesses on the stand. I have a feeling, like many others, you haven’t done this and are relying on secondhand accounts of people who say they have reviewed the trial. I have not watched it all, but I have watched enough to know that what I have said and what I am saying now isn’t a ‘fiction’.

Some things I do not know about are the accounts of rocks being thrown and hitting Rittenhouse. I also unsure about accounts of Rittenhouse being hit by the skateboard prior to being on the ground? Both Gauge and Rittenhouse said things in the heat of the moment they don’t fully recall - not surprising given the situation.

That Rittenhouse said the first person he shot had a gun (to Gauge And/or other/s) was clearly untrue, possibly a lie, but he said he didn’t recall saying this and admitted he never saw a gun nor thought he saw a gun. My memory is hazy here (watched Rittenhouse’s account not long after he gave it) as he may have said he suspected he had a hand gun? I don’t believe he did though but the prosecution or defence had posed this question?

How does this tie into my first account posted here? You can look back and tell me if you wish. My first brief account (the one Proof responded to) was a very brief account that I posted just to make sure people knew what had happened and to see who hadn’t bothered to watch witnesses accounts or listen the evidence.

I hope the gun laws in the US are reviewed and changed. I don’t think they will be before the country splits though. I do think the US will split and I hope it does in some form or another and in a peaceful manner. If that happens it will be a glorious thing as the age old paradigm of revolution=war will hold less weight and perhaps other nations will follow suit and the common folk of the world will actually gain more control over their lives in terms of their relationship with governing bodies.

No doubt you are probably asking why I am interested in this trial. It is because I believe what I said in the previous paragraph will happen within my life time and that I expecting a parade of extreme and counterproductive views to be espoused so it would be useful to actually know what the case involved and what evidence there was.

To add I actually gave a balanced account that included claims from Gauge. You have, on the other hand, gone out of your way to paint the picture you believe in.

Anything and everything you say here I cannot trust and I don’t think anyone else should either if they are trying to view this case with balance and reason.

Instances:
First off, R was running away from the group chasing him, and stopped running to shoot one of them. So they chased him again. The person he shot was unarmed.
— Kenosha Kid

Well, no. I was referring to the instance of Gauge because that was what was specifically being talked about.

Yes, he was being chased. Why? He slowly and pointed his gun to deter the first person. They kept on coming at him. In fact they got right up to him before he fired. There was also a gunshot fired from behind the guy running at him before Rittenhouse fired.

Yes, the guy was unarmed. Also, he was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and charging him without any indication that he was going to stop. To repeat he didn’t fire until he was directly upon him. Given his state of mind. Running headlong at someone armed with a rifle during a protest (a protest where a small minority of people were throwing rocks at the police and setting fire to dumpsters and smashing property: added to show the potential volatility of the situation). It doesn’t take much to view - in R’s situation - the actions of someone running directly at him, vocally threatening to kill him, not ceasing to pursue after he had had a gun pointed at him, and getting to within reach of the rifle as an immanent threat to his life.

We can certainly question if the guy threatening to kill him meant it. In rage and adrenaline fuelled situations where a complete stranger is involved and openly threatens to kill you, runs at you, and follows when you run away, it isn’t a massive stretch to think that if such a person got hold of your gun he’d turn it on you. Maybe he wouldn’t have, perhaps the chances that he would’ve shot Rittenhouse or ‘craniumed’ him were small. Who really put themselves into an extremely dangerous and fatal situation? Rittenhouse by simply ‘being there’ like many others or someone, unarmed, running after someone with a gun and openly threatening to kill them?

If Rittenhouse had been shot and killed it would’ve been murder. The reason Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with murder is because it wasn’t murder in the eyes of the law. Nor was it against the law for him to openly carry the weapon he was carrying. Nor was it against the law for him to walk around in the street practically alone in those circumstances (it was damn stupid though).

If we look at this as someone willingly running into an situation were their life was in immediate and severe danger and were to ask which person was doing this in this situation it is a no brainer. Was the force used excessive? There is certainly a case there as firing four shots a point blank range clearly sounds excessive. The only real defence here is that he was fearing for his life and panicked.

Excessive force is a point to argue here as far as I can see. The fact that he shot the guy in self defence would be much stronger if he’d merely fired one shot.

Maybe Rittenhouse and fellows had planned this out? Seems unlikely. Maybe they had talked about it and wanted to shoot some people they viewed as reprehensible? Speculation is mere speculation though. When speculation is cast as ‘evidence’ there is a problem.

Next part of the ‘false narrative’ I gained from actually watching the trial.

R ran into a crowd but word spread that he'd murdered someone, and he was chased by another unarmed man who struck him to the ground. R murdered that unarmed guy too.
— Kenosha Kid

You’re omitting what you referred to as a ‘false narrative’. If you actually listen to Gauge’s account - and his phone recording - Gauge asks Rittenhouse where he is going (after he had shot the first person). Rittenhouse said he was going to the police and ran towards the police as a ‘mob’ was beginning to form and people were starting to shout “get him!” and someone said “Cranium him!” (Gauge himself heard the ‘get him threats and said this on the stand as well as saying that after reviewing recordings he had also heard ‘cranium him’ shouted). In the video played in caught you can hear while Rittenhouse is on the ground someone shout “you’re gonna die!”.

You’re also making this sound like it was one or two people pursuing him by saying ‘he was chased by another unarmed man who struck him to the ground’ which doesn’t account for the group of people pursuing him and he wasn’t ‘struck to the ground’ by the unarmed man. This is just wrong.

What happened - and what was actually shown in court - was a group was pursuing him, throwing rocks and had hit him to the point where he fell down. Gauge from 30 feet away (by his estimation) then said he wanted to help Rittenhouse so he took his gun out of his belt and ran to catch up with Rittenhouse with gun in hand. Gauge saw Jump-kick man but didn’t see the actual jump kick only this person ‘going over Rittenhouse’ is how he put it I think?

The only armed person who confronted R was the paramedic trying to attend to his second victim, who correctly believed R to be an active shooter.
— Kenosha Kid

He wasn’t trying to get to the second person who was shot. That is simply wrong. Gauge said he was concerned for Rittenhouse’s safety due to head trauma (as he had been hit in the head with rock/s and a skateboard). As I said before once he was close to Rittenhouse with his gun in hand he raised his hands when Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at him. Now here is where Gauge believed Rittenhouse had tried to shoot him even when he’d raised his hands as he then tried to reload his weapon. Gauge says he viewed this as he had pulled the trigger and nothing happened so he then reloaded. Gauge then says this is the reason he closed the space between himself and Rittenhouse. As Gauge moved towards Rittenhouse he ended up in a position where his gun was pointing at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fired when Gauge’s gun was pointed at him (and Gauge confirmed this openly in court).

All in all it is quite quite silly to say:

No point addressing this to you particularly, just for the record, but your timeline of events was a work of fiction.
— Kenosha Kid

I did actually go back and review Gauge’s account to see if I’d made some error. Other than not being explicit that I was talking about Gauge (who didn’t know what had happened with the first four shots fired and says so in court) I think it is untrue to say my brief remarks are a ‘fiction’ when you then go on to say things yourself that are misguided in terms of giving a clear account of what happened.

To repeat, the evidence is available online. Anyone can watch the trial and the actual account of the witnesses on the stand. I have a feeling, like many others, you haven’t done this and are relying on secondhand accounts of people who say they have reviewed the trial. I have not watched it all, but I have watched enough to know that what I have said and what I am saying now isn’t a ‘fiction’.

Some things I do not know about are the accounts of rocks being thrown and hitting Rittenhouse. I also unsure about accounts of Rittenhouse being hit by the skateboard prior to being on the ground? Both Gauge and Rittenhouse said things in the heat of the moment they don’t fully recall - not surprising given the situation.

That Rittenhouse said the first person he shot had a gun (to Gauge And/or other/s) was clearly untrue, possibly a lie, but he said he didn’t recall saying this and admitted he never saw a gun nor thought he saw a gun. My memory is hazy here (watched Rittenhouse’s account not long after he gave it) as he may have said he suspected he had a hand gun? I don’t believe he did though but the prosecution or defence had posed this question?

How does this tie into my first account posted here? You can look back and tell me if you wish. My first brief account (the one Proof responded to) was a very brief account that I posted just to make sure people knew what had happened and to see who hadn’t bothered to watch witnesses accounts or listen the evidence.

I hope the gun laws in the US are reviewed and changed. I don’t think they will be before the country splits though. I do think the US will split and I hope it does in some form or another and in a peaceful manner. If that happens it will be a glorious thing as the age old paradigm of revolution=war will hold less weight and perhaps other nations will follow suit and the common folk of the world will actually gain more control over their lives in terms of their relationship with governing bodies.

No doubt you are probably asking why I am interested in this trial. It is because I believe what I said in the previous paragraph will happen within my life time and that I expecting a parade of extreme and counterproductive views to be espoused so it would be useful to actually know what the case involved and what evidence there was. — I like sushi

So... do you have a job?

Meaning if you don't have the time to review the evidence it is okay to rely on second or third hand accounts of what the trial offered in terms of evidence?

Often such accounts have agendas as people usually have agendas to push especially when the topic involves controversial items such as firearms in the US and protests.

My agenda is to curb the extreme points of view and simply make clear what happened. I think people carrying guns around is ridiculous but that is the law and the US is nothing like where I live or where I am from. I've stated this already as a point that clouds my judgement when reviewing things that happen in the US that would never happen where I am from in the same way due to the laws being different and people not really seeing carrying a gun as a matter of 'personal safety'.

My dad use dot visit the US regularly and one of the people he meet up with regularly asked him how he could feel safe NOT carrying a gun. The interesting thing is some people do carry guns because it makes them feel safe - strange as that may seem to others (including myself). What is more they find it incredible that others don't feel the way they feel.

Humans are weird.

Often such accounts have agendas as people usually have agendas to push especially when the topic involves controversial items such as firearms in the US and protests. — I like sushi

The law has it's own agenda. There is a metric shit ton of facts and video that did not make it before the jury. If you are interested in facts, then you'd have to be really myopic to limit your review to the scope permitted by that judge. Even if he was four-square with the law, that says nothing about the facts. Your alleged desire to understand the greater social considerations in the U.S. regarding guns will be sorely wanting if you don't understand anything about who shot who with what under what circumstances that gave rise to the protests which fell on deaf ears which then resulted in riots, and then, finally, the shooting you are discussing.

But yeah, when considering the "Rittenhouse verdict", feel free to limit your review to what the judge told the jury they had to limit their review to. Ignore all the centuries of systemic racism that preceded it, not to mention the 7 shots fired into the back of a guy that could have been manhandled to the ground, and all that followed.

BLM.

The law has it's own agenda. There is a metric shit ton of facts and video that did not make it before the jury. If you are interested in facts, then you'd have to be really myopic to limit your review to the scope permitted by that judge. — James Riley

Relative myopia. Show me this evidence then. Maybe I made a mistake in assuming that the trial offered up a large enough body of evidence relevant enough. I'm happy to listen and learn about other sources that would've changed the outcome of the trial.

Show me this evidence then. — I like sushi

Google is your friend.

No links? Nothing? If there is a 'metric shit ton' I guess I can find something, so I'll look.

I googled this: "evidence not used in rittenhouse trial"

I found something that basically agreed with what I said about 'unreasonable force':

“I think the prosecution could have just charged that second-degree homicide with the mitigating factor that he thought he was entitled to use self-defense, but that his use of force was unreasonable,” Gross continued. “Ultimately, that was the prosecution’s burden and they could not meet that burden.”
https://nypost.com/2021/11/19/experts-on-what-went-wrong-for-prosecution-in-rittenhouse-trial/

I cannot see anything yet that immediately refers to evidence that would've changed the outcome of the trial in favour of the prosecution but there are items in favour of the defence.