If it's true that "he told a lot of his friends that he wanted to shoot people there. Many witnesses to this", then this will be some real evidence for your view, and will definitely modify my opinion.
I have been wrong before, and I admit it when good evidence arises. But I need more than your impress…
If it's true that "he told a lot of his friends that he wanted to shoot people there. Many witnesses to this", then this will be some real evidence for your view, and will definitely modify my opinion.
I have been wrong before, and I admit it when good evidence arises. But I need more than your impression before I accept that, I need some harder evidence.
I did not say that Rittenhouse was the only person rendering first aid; only that he was the only person that a prosecution witness had seen rendering first aid - to a protester, before any shootings. The point is that he was wandering in the crowd offering medic services and yelling "friendly, friendly, friendly" before Rosenbaum attacked him - not looking for trouble. He tried to run away from Rosenbaum and only used the gun after being cornered. He then tried to flee again. After he tripped and was attacked and shot two more, he again ran away. He never shot at anybody who had not first attacked him or threatened his life (with a handgun). There are no allegations from the prosecution that Rittenhouse had injured anybody, threatened anybody, or pointed his gun at anybody before he was attacked by Rosenbaum.
Anyway, awaiting your documentation that Rittenhouse was hoping to kill people. That could be a game changer for me. I didn't see the prosecution bring that up, which strikes me as odd if you are correct, as it would have greatly helped their case. So I suspect you got that from a rumor or unreliable source, but it's possible that I'm wrong and I await evidence. Over to you.
Rittenhouse's shootings have been legally determined by a jury to have been legitimate self defense, after hearing all the evidence. So far, all the people I've seen smugly condemn him have been deeply ignorant of the evidence presented by both sides at the trial - they want to second guess the jury based on their far more limited knowledge from only biased sources.
The shootings are a tragedy, but not a crime. Rosenbaum was a piece of work who apparently attacked Rittenhouse without any justification, but the other two (one killed, on injured) were actually thinking they were doing the right thing, believing that like the McMichael's in Georgia, they had some kind of vigilante "citizen's arrest" right and duty to chase down and detain by force somebody running away, based on rumors passed among the crowd (neither had directly seen the earlier shooting of Rosenbaum).
Again, I think it was foolish of Rittenhouse to try to provide first aid in a riot situation, or to go there at all, much less carrying a gun. But his sense that he might need it turned out not to be mistaken; if he had been killed by the crowd, it would have made a far smaller impact nationally. There were around 19 people killed in the rioting after George Floyd's murder, and you know none of their names. His would have been similarly downplayed nationally, if it were him who was killed. The third person shot and wounded was also a medic carrying a gun "just in case" it was needed, but nobody is condemning him for being there and armed.
"Prosecutors have repeatedly tried to introduce evidence of Mr. Rittenhouse’s associations with the far-right Proud Boys, as well as a cellphone video taken weeks before the shootings in Kenosha in which Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot men leaving a pharmacy. The judge did not allow either as evidence for trial."
Um, almost. All you have is allegations from the prosecution about what evidence they wanted to present. If you follow trials, you know that both sides puff up their assertions, and only sometimes succeed in providing evidence to support it which survives scrutiny.
This particular prosecutor did not earn my respect; one of the worst I've observed, more political than legal. I do not trust his word.
So I give a bit more weight to the assertion, but I still want to see the actual evidence, not the assertion by a partisan that such evidence exists. Was that cellphone video released by anybody? Have you seen it? Do you have a link? I promise that I will watch it and get back to you if so. But I do not trust the prosecution's characterization to be accurate and in full context. (Nor would I trust assertions from the defense about evidence not actually presented).
Such a cell phone video would go much further towards changing my mind. Failing that, you claimed there were "many witnesses", which usually means 3 or more. Where are their words, so we can judge fairly?
OK, please provide your sources.
If it's true that "he told a lot of his friends that he wanted to shoot people there. Many witnesses to this", then this will be some real evidence for your view, and will definitely modify my opinion.
I have been wrong before, and I admit it when good evidence arises. But I need more than your impression before I accept that, I need some harder evidence.
I did not say that Rittenhouse was the only person rendering first aid; only that he was the only person that a prosecution witness had seen rendering first aid - to a protester, before any shootings. The point is that he was wandering in the crowd offering medic services and yelling "friendly, friendly, friendly" before Rosenbaum attacked him - not looking for trouble. He tried to run away from Rosenbaum and only used the gun after being cornered. He then tried to flee again. After he tripped and was attacked and shot two more, he again ran away. He never shot at anybody who had not first attacked him or threatened his life (with a handgun). There are no allegations from the prosecution that Rittenhouse had injured anybody, threatened anybody, or pointed his gun at anybody before he was attacked by Rosenbaum.
Anyway, awaiting your documentation that Rittenhouse was hoping to kill people. That could be a game changer for me. I didn't see the prosecution bring that up, which strikes me as odd if you are correct, as it would have greatly helped their case. So I suspect you got that from a rumor or unreliable source, but it's possible that I'm wrong and I await evidence. Over to you.
Rittenhouse's shootings have been legally determined by a jury to have been legitimate self defense, after hearing all the evidence. So far, all the people I've seen smugly condemn him have been deeply ignorant of the evidence presented by both sides at the trial - they want to second guess the jury based on their far more limited knowledge from only biased sources.
The shootings are a tragedy, but not a crime. Rosenbaum was a piece of work who apparently attacked Rittenhouse without any justification, but the other two (one killed, on injured) were actually thinking they were doing the right thing, believing that like the McMichael's in Georgia, they had some kind of vigilante "citizen's arrest" right and duty to chase down and detain by force somebody running away, based on rumors passed among the crowd (neither had directly seen the earlier shooting of Rosenbaum).
Again, I think it was foolish of Rittenhouse to try to provide first aid in a riot situation, or to go there at all, much less carrying a gun. But his sense that he might need it turned out not to be mistaken; if he had been killed by the crowd, it would have made a far smaller impact nationally. There were around 19 people killed in the rioting after George Floyd's murder, and you know none of their names. His would have been similarly downplayed nationally, if it were him who was killed. The third person shot and wounded was also a medic carrying a gun "just in case" it was needed, but nobody is condemning him for being there and armed.
"Prosecutors have repeatedly tried to introduce evidence of Mr. Rittenhouse’s associations with the far-right Proud Boys, as well as a cellphone video taken weeks before the shootings in Kenosha in which Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot men leaving a pharmacy. The judge did not allow either as evidence for trial."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-victims.html
I suppose now you want to quibble over "suggested"
Surprise me: modify your opinion.
Um, almost. All you have is allegations from the prosecution about what evidence they wanted to present. If you follow trials, you know that both sides puff up their assertions, and only sometimes succeed in providing evidence to support it which survives scrutiny.
This particular prosecutor did not earn my respect; one of the worst I've observed, more political than legal. I do not trust his word.
So I give a bit more weight to the assertion, but I still want to see the actual evidence, not the assertion by a partisan that such evidence exists. Was that cellphone video released by anybody? Have you seen it? Do you have a link? I promise that I will watch it and get back to you if so. But I do not trust the prosecution's characterization to be accurate and in full context. (Nor would I trust assertions from the defense about evidence not actually presented).
Such a cell phone video would go much further towards changing my mind. Failing that, you claimed there were "many witnesses", which usually means 3 or more. Where are their words, so we can judge fairly?
I am through with you