Rittenhouse Defense Releases New Video That Clearly Proves Self Defense

[KLB]

One thing is clear. This case will be judged by citizens on the basis of reasonableness, not by attorneys.

By a jury that has been bombarded with false information since the event took place. This is an uphill fight. I hope the defense is up to the task.

 

[KG1]

The only relevant question IMO was did Rittenhouse have a reasonable fear of being attacked by a hostile mob? I think the evidence clearly shows that he did and acted in self defense based on that reasonable fear. Not Guilty.

 

[cobber]

And I would add.... "Do it all in cowboy boots".



Keep those boots polished, Kyle.... they were made for walking and walk you will.

Clean shoot.

Posted to FB. Got a 24 hour ban.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Posted to FB. Got a 24 hour ban.

I'm a couple days into a 30-day ban. Words hurt feelings.

 

[cobber]

I'm a couple days into a 30-day ban. Words hurt feelings.

Just makes me want to go post Let’s go Brandon.

 

[XbigcheezX]

No, but given the new footage it shows he had a legitimate self defense shooting and should have never been locked up. It was only for theater. Someone fired a shot, with muzzle flash, as he’s being chased, then someone fired more shots after he fired his weapon the first time.

So essentially.


Rittenhouse runs to put out fire.

Arson chases after him.

Someone shoots a gun in his direction.

He turns and shoots the arson chasing after him, not knowing where the shots came from and someone violently and actively chasing him.

He heard 4 more shots fired.

He turns to flee, runs, falls, pummeled with skateboard and guy pulls his firearm and aims it at him.

He shoots both actively attacking him.


He never provoked it. He never instigated it. He was in clear defense in every situation he fired a shot in.

All political theater.

You just summed it up in under 150 words (148 to be exact)

 

[XbigcheezX]

the DA was making a big deal about the sling today. I guess he's gonna try and make the argument that because the AR was securely strapped to the body there was no danger of them taking Kyle's gun when they grabbed for it and therefore not deadly force. I dont know. If I was on that jury it wouldnt fly with me but then I'm not on that jury.

I'll be curious what the expert witness from the defense has to say about this... We all own one or two of these, you know how they are meant to be detachable...

 

[Amishman44]

The only relevant question IMO was did Rittenhouse have a reasonable fear of being attacked by a hostile mob? I think the evidence clearly shows that he did and acted in self defense based on that reasonable fear. Not Guilty.

Not only that, but he ONLY fired his weapon in self-defense and ONLY at those who were actively and directly engaging him in assault-type combat...WITH the intent to cause grave bodily injury and/or death...as captured on video!
The prosecution has stated that, "Kyle Rittenhouse was the only individual who actually killed anyone that night." and he's right...but understanding the context in which he shot and killed individuals that night, because he was under an active threat of grave bodily injury and/or death, the shootings were self-defense, not an assault...therefore, not 'murder'!
This whole thing is a twisting of the facts...which constitute lies because it's not the 'truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!'

 

[cobber]

Not only that, but he ONLY fired his weapon in self-defense and ONLY at those who were actively and directly engaging him in assault-type combat...WITH the intent to cause grave bodily injury and/or death...as captured on video!
The prosecution has stated that, "Kyle Rittenhouse was the only individual who actually killed anyone that night." and he's right...but understanding the context in which he shot and killed individuals that night, because he was under an active threat of grave bodily injury and/or death, the shootings were self-defense, not an assault...therefore, not 'murder'!
This whole thing is a twisting of the facts...which constitute lies because it's not the 'truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!'

It’s clearly a political prosecution so obviously the DA is going to distort the facts, in search of a conviction. Even if it gets overturned on appeal, the DA can claim he did his job.
I believe our own Kirk Freeman has seen one or two of these, even in Red State of Indiana.

 

[NewPerson556]

I'll be curious what the expert witness from the defense has to say about this... We all own one or two of these, you know how they are meant to be detachable...

the defense eluded to antifa were making homemade bombs iirc in opening statements. so I think they are going to argue that the bag that guy threw couldve been a homemade bomb. couple that with threats that were made and I think theyre hoping that will be enough to persuade for reasonableness and proportional force.

its that first one that will be key to the trial. the others that came later in the street are pretty much textbook self defense.

 

[BE Mike]

Still does not help the fact that the DA is pushing for this and may have withheld info. Will the DA ever get punished?

Ummm, let's see...Will a lawyer ever be punished by other lawyers? One answer may be, Not likely unless he/ she is charged criminally, judged and convicted by citizens. Disbarment is pretty rare.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It’s clearly a political prosecution so obviously the DA is going to distort the facts, in search of a conviction. Even if it gets overturned on appeal, the DA can claim he did his job.
I believe our own Kirk Freeman has seen one or two of these, even in Red State of Indiana.

It's important to note that attorneys are not under oath nor are they required to believe what they are arguing. Juries often don't realize those key facts.

 

[HoughMade]

It's important to note that attorneys are not under oath nor are they required to believe what they are arguing. Juries often don't realize those key facts.

We have an oath, but it focuses more on zealously representing our clients and only arguing positions that the facts and law support, or in good faith for changes in the law or inferences that can be made from facts. Unfortunately, a lot of people have a hard time distinguishing between facts and inferences to be drawn from facts.

Oh, and prosecutors have a special duty that I don't have- to seek justice, but there is no one view of what that means.

 

[frenchiectfd2203]

I did notice that gas was $2.09 a gallon on the video footage of this trial.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

View attachment 166449

IANAL, but wouldn't trying to get a witness to change their testimony (making their previous testimony perjury, or their "changed" version perjury?) be considered witness tampering? If not, it should be.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Rittenhouse Judge Slams CNN, Jeffrey Toobin By Name Over ‘Obvious’ Legal Ignorance | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

 

[HoughMade]

IANAL, but wouldn't trying to get a witness to change their testimony (making their previous testimony perjury, or their "changed" version perjury?) be considered witness tampering? If not, it should be.

I guess every time I cross-examine someone I witness tamper.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I guess every time I cross-examine someone I witness tamper.

Do you try and get your own witness to change their testimony? It's one thing to try and get the other side's witness to change their testimony (normal), but it seems to me that trying to get your own witness to try and change theirs is less than legal. If I were going to cross-examine a witness whose attorney convinced to change their testimony, it would be really short. "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?" It really should be that simple.

 

[HoughMade]

Do you try and get your own witness to change their testimony? It's one thing to try and get the other side's witness to change their testimony (normal), but it seems to me that trying to get your own witness to try and change theirs is less than legal. If I were going to cross-examine a witness whose attorney convinced to change their testimony, it would be really short. "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?" It really should be that simple.

If "my own" witness changes their story from what they previously told me or testified to, absolutely. This is all done out in the open on the witness stand. It's not "witness tampering".

As for "my own" witness, many times a witness claims to see something or know something. If I want to get the information they have, I call them. They are technically "my witness", but that doesn't mean I have any special control over them.