From the videos being shown in court, it's obvious to me that about half the people on the street that night are only interested in taking video, hoping to be in the right place at the right time to record some violence.  After the shots, more people pulled out camera phones to record.

This is the state of our media today.  On-the-spot, immediate recordings shared live.  That's why the traditional new agencies are struggling.

I love the irony of Bicep Glock Boy sitting down & yelling for a medic after threatening Kyle, who had been offering others medical help.  Priceless!!

Ok, so will the same jury from GZ be for Rittenhouse? 

I (think) get what you're saying here.  My point was depends on the jury makeup and how the defense presents their case.  In the end, one can't control who is on the jury.  Have seen it so many times in Civil cases where non-engineers will get swayed by emotion and disregard Federal/State/City codes.

Defense Counsel: "Driver was shown by forensics to be traveling in excess of 95 mph when they went through the guardrail.  The posted speed limit in that area of the freeway is 45 mph, and well in excess of the 65 mph (or whatever it was) design speed limit per FHWA/DOT/etc.  Drivers BAC was also approximately 2x the legal limit." 

Jury: "The design of the freeway should have accounted for a drunk driver going over 2x the posted speed limit and 2x legal limit for BAC."

Maybe the Zummerman jury was exceptionally smart and Rittenhouse's jury is fully of idiots, that is always possible. But I am thinking if we assume both are average then Rittenhouse should be ok. Still wouldn't want to be in his position though.

Watching the updates, his attorney's are doing a pretty good job, even got bicep dude to admit he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.

I also saw that bicep dude claimed that he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter which makes sense for him to claim. (Makes him look like the hero and is hard to disprove)

GZ should not have gone to trial either. Zero witnesses, and GZ had injuries on his head. 

So we are seeing social justice being used to waste tax dollars and ruin peoples lives.  Then people like Spike Lee tweet GZ's parents address and the homeowners had to move because of death threats and brick being thrown into their window. Spike had the wrong address. Same last name, but no relation.

Prosecutors don't care because they won't have to pay a dime out of their pockets or have their lives ruined.

I think prosecutors sometimes fear what would happen if they don't try to take it to trial. This of course isn't a good justification but it is an understandable one.

Hypothetical situation: You are the prosecutor and you think the arrested person is innocent but you know that if you don't file charges there will be a city wide riot with dozens dead. Do you send the accused to trial knowing they may be wrongly convicted but would save lives or refuse on principle and risk an ensuing bloodshed?

I think prosecutors sometimes fear what would happen if they don't try to take it to trial. This of course isn't a good justification but it is an understandable one.

Hypothetical situation: You are the prosecutor and you think the arrested person is innocent but you know that if you don't file charges there will be a city wide riot with dozens dead. Do you send the accused to trial knowing they may be wrongly convicted but would save lives or refuse on principle and risk an ensuing bloodshed?

Doing whats right isnt hard.

In ur hypothetical, why not grab 10 random white guys and say theyre KKK, so BLM doesnt riot. Or how about 20? Or 30?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Doing whats right isnt hard.

In ur hypothetical, why not grab 10 random white guys and say theyre KKK, so BLM doesnt riot. Or how about 20? Or 30?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Depends on how people reason through such things. Some people will, for example, choose the option that will result in the least amount of harm. It makes sense, it is logical on a certain level. Now if you add on top of that a fear or other emotion (like fear of a riot in your own city or losing your job) it is quite understandable why people may choose such a choice. If you could say solidly that 10 people would die if the innocent man wasn't sent to jail, you could logically reason that 10 innocent lives are more valuable than 1 life sent to jail wrongly.

If you are familiar with the trolley dilema, there are versions of that question that kind of touch on that. One such dilemas involved a lynch mob wanting to hang 10 people. You as the sherrif could save 9 of them by lying and saying that you witnessed one of them do the crime but if you tried to stop them from lynching any of them you risked all of them being lynched. The trolley dilema can also be used to analyze torturing people for information, if it provides information that saves lives then it is worth any cost (some would argue).

Personally I strongly believe that it is better that 10 guilty men should go free than a single innocent person be sent to jail but even I can see the temptation to make such a choice.

Depends on how people reason through such things. Some people will, for example, choose the option that will result in the least amount of harm. It makes sense, it is logical on a certain level. Now if you add on top of that a fear or other emotion (like fear of a riot in your own city or losing your job) it is quite understandable why people may choose such a choice. If you could say solidly that 10 people would die if the innocent man wasn't sent to jail, you could logically reason that 10 innocent lives are more valuable than 1 life sent to jail wrongly.

If you are familiar with the trolley dilema, there are versions of that question that kind of touch on that. One such dilemas involved a lynch mob wanting to hang 10 people. You as the sherrif could save 9 of them by lying and saying that you witnessed one of them do the crime but if you tried to stop them from lynching any of them you risked all of them being lynched. The trolley dilema can also be used to analyze torturing people for information, if it provides information that saves lives then it is worth any cost (some would argue).

Personally I strongly believe that it is better that 10 guilty men should go free than a single innocent person be sent to jail but even I can see the temptation to make such a choice.

Said another way:  would you be more or less likely to negotiate with terrorists or other hostage takers if they threaten you with a dead body every hour unless their demands are met? 

An emotional decision would be to save the hostages' lives over not letting the criminals escape.

However, what's to stop the NEXT hostage situation from demanding even more in exchange for lives?  Where would it end.

Only if there's a firm adherence to a "no negotiations" policy will the hostage takers get the point -- taking hostages won't get you what you want, and killing innocents will turn public opinion against you.  People are smart enough to blame the person pulling the trigger or using the blade vs. blaming government for refusing to negotiate.

So, I finished watching Bicep Boy's testimony.

What a lying sack of excrement!! 

He was part of the mob more than he was a free lance paramedic.

What I really think could have helped the defense, but wasn't asked, would have been about the guy's CCW training.  The guy tried to dance around the fact he was CC illegally.  When asked if he had a CCW permit, he said yes.  Then when pressed, he admitted it wasn't valid -- expired. But, he's yet to be charged with carrying an illegal concealed firearm.

What I wish they would have asked is how h e was trained, and whether it's okay to draw a firearm without being threatened with death or injury.  He ran up on Rittenhouse with gun in hand, froze when he saw the rifle pointed in his direction (but low), then resumed his advance pointing the G27 in the direction of Rittenhouse's head.

He said he feared he would be shot, so he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse -- who was still on the ground.  I don't think he gets who was the aggressor, and who was the defender.

If he'd left the gun in his waistband until he saw Rittenhouse point the gun in his direction, maybe he'd be believable.  But when he omits the fact he had a Glock when giving his statement, then refuses to answer questions for a detective and the DA a few weeks later, and got caught in lie after half-truth after omission, that's bad enough.  Add to that the fact he hired a CIVIL ATTORNEY the week after the riot, and is suing the state and city for $10M.  And he's filed another suit in Federal court.

He also admitted to being affiliated with and speaking at rallies for some revolution group.  This guy was looking for trouble, and he found it.  He just didn't believe there would be actual consequences.

Just do the right thing.

When you don't do the right thing bad things happen.  Like the swamp in Washington DC and politics in Hawaii.

Just do the right thing.

When you don't do the right thing bad things happen.  Like the swamp in Washington DC and politics in Hawaii.

"Be a man, duuuuuu the right thing"

Russell Peters

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So, I finished watching Bicep Boy's testimony.

What a lying sack of excrement!! 

He was part of the mob more than he was a free lance paramedic.

What I really think could have helped the defense, but wasn't asked, would have been about the guy's CCW training.  The guy tried to dance around the fact he was CC illegally.  When asked if he had a CCW permit, he said yes.  Then when pressed, he admitted it wasn't valid -- expired. But, he's yet to be charged with carrying an illegal concealed firearm.

What I wish they would have asked is how h e was trained, and whether it's okay to draw a firearm without being threatened with death or injury.  He ran up on Rittenhouse with gun in hand, froze when he saw the rifle pointed in his direction (but low), then resumed his advance pointing the G27 in the direction of Rittenhouse's head.

He said he feared he would be shot, so he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse -- who was still on the ground.  I don't think he gets who was the aggressor, and who was the defender.

If he'd left the gun in his waistband until he saw Rittenhouse point the gun in his direction, maybe he'd be believable.  But when he omits the fact he had a Glock when giving his statement, then refuses to answer questions for a detective and the DA a few weeks later, and got caught in lie after half-truth after omission, that's bad enough.  Add to that the fact he hired a CIVIL ATTORNEY the week after the riot, and is suing the state and city for $10M.  And he's filed another suit in Federal court.

He also admitted to being affiliated with and speaking at rallies for some revolution group.  This guy was looking for trouble, and he found it.  He just didn't believe there would be actual consequences.

Oops! Prosecution's 'Star' Witness Admits Rittenhouse Didn't Shoot Until He Pointed His Own Gun at Him

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/oops-prosecutions-star-witness-admits-rittenhouse-didnt-shoot-until-he-pointed-his-own-gun-him

Oops! Prosecution's 'Star' Witness Admits Rittenhouse Didn't Shoot Until He Pointed His Own Gun at Him

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/oops-prosecutions-star-witness-admits-rittenhouse-didnt-shoot-until-he-pointed-his-own-gun-him

Bicep Guy was really hard to listen to.  His answers were obviously pre-scripted.  He gave just enough facts to answer the question in the light he wanted them to be viewed under, but omitted "the whole truth" that, when finally admitted, made much more sense and reversed the situation he tried to portray.

Based on the video, he ran toward the first shots because someone may have been shot, and he wanted to see if they needed medical aid.  Only a few seconds later, he did a 180 because a bunch of people were running after Rittenhouse and yelling "Get him!  Get his ass!  He just shot somebody!" That's when his story became, "I thought he was an active shooter and might hurt someone else."  His next "spin" was "I ran toward the defendant, because I saw he was on the ground being kicked and hit, and he might need medical attention."        

So many inconsistencies, retractions, and bald face lies proven to be false by the videos, photos and other evidence just made me think, "This guy thinks he can get away with lying under oath, just like he's getting away with playing the victim after going after Rittenhouse with a loaded Glock 27."

Yeah, this was the prosecution's "star witness," and he had everyone at the prosecutor's table squirming in their seats and face-palming during the defense cross examination.  Their reactions to some of the answers were hilarious.   

Bicep Guy was really hard to listen to.  His answers were obviously pre-scripted.  He gave just enough facts to answer the question in the light he wanted them to be viewed under, but omitted "the whole truth" that, when finally admitted, made much more sense and reversed the situation he tried to portray.

Based on the video, he ran toward the first shots because someone may have been shot, and he wanted to see if they needed medical aid.  Only a few seconds later, he did a 180 because a bunch of people were running after Rittenhouse and yelling "Get him!  Get his ass!  He just shot somebody!" That's when his story became, "I thought he was an active shooter and might hurt someone else."  His next "spin" was "I ran toward the defendant, because I saw he was on the ground being kicked and hit, and he might need medical attention."        

So many inconsistencies, retractions, and bald face lies proven to be false by the videos, photos and other evidence just made me think, "This guy thinks he can get away with lying under oath, just like he's getting away with playing the victim after going after Rittenhouse with a loaded Glock 27."

Yeah, this was the prosecution's "star witness," and he had everyone at the prosecutor's table squirming in their seats and face-palming during the defense cross examination.  Their reactions to some of the answers were hilarious.   

During my last training class, they made it very clear that you stand a much better chance of surviving a shooting if after you have been threatened with harm you are the first to pull the trigger and make contact with your projectile(s). We were given a few methods on being first. And following up until the threat has been stopped. I train in those methods. I hope I am never in that position but if I ever am put into that position I am confident all my training will pull me through.

During my last training class, they made it very clear that you stand a much better chance of surviving a shooting if after you have been threatened with harm you are the first to pull the trigger and make contact with your projectile(s). We were given a few methods on being first. And following up until the threat has been stopped. I train in those methods. I hope I am never in that position but if I ever am put into that position I am confident all my training will pull me through.

Yeah, it's difficult to believe that Bicep Guy ran up on Rittenhouse, saw the rifle pointing in his direction, raised his hands and stopped for a second, then continued advancing with his gun in hand pointing toward Rittenhouse, all because he was trying to "help."  At no time did he ask if Rittenhouse needed help, or even try to get the attackers to stop.  He was armed and could have easily been able to join Rittenhouse in stopping the attacks.

At one point, he lied to investigators saying he told the skateboard guy to quit hitting Rittenhouse with the board.  He must have said it in his mind, because the evidence contradicted him.  In fact, the evidence contradicted him so much, I find it hard to believe half of what he claims to remember.

The defense did get a good "jab" in, when they said, "It's striking that you claim the trauma, the surgery and the pain meds caused you to not remember having the gun on you in your statement to police, yet you were able to give accurate details of every other part of your actions that night.  Interesting that the only fact that you couldn't seem to remember was that you were armed."

The defense did get a good "jab" in, when they said, "It's striking that you claim the trauma, the surgery and the pain meds caused you to not remember having the gun on you in your statement to police, yet you were able to give accurate details of every other part of your actions that night.  Interesting that the only fact that you couldn't seem to remember was that you were armed."

The reason he couldn’t remember that he was armed that night was due to the fact he was looking down the barrel of an AR-15 and probably shit himself like Brandon does.

Yeah, it's difficult to believe that Bicep Guy ran up on Rittenhouse, saw the rifle pointing in his direction, raised his hands and stopped for a second, then continued advancing with his gun in hand pointing toward Rittenhouse, all because he was trying to "help."  At no time did he ask if Rittenhouse needed help, or even try to get the attackers to stop.  He was armed and could have easily been able to join Rittenhouse in stopping the attacks.

At one point, he lied to investigators saying he told the skateboard guy to quit hitting Rittenhouse with the board.  He must have said it in his mind, because the evidence contradicted him.  In fact, the evidence contradicted him so much, I find it hard to believe half of what he claims to remember.

The defense did get a good "jab" in, when they said, "It's striking that you claim the trauma, the surgery and the pain meds caused you to not remember having the gun on you in your statement to police, yet you were able to give accurate details of every other part of your actions that night.  Interesting that the only fact that you couldn't seem to remember was that you were armed."

Luckily there's vid that disproves much of what he was saying. If there wasn't any vid, he can claim he wasn't armed  and there would be no way to prove otherwise. Basically, this guy is scum and continues to be scum.  The problem is the media had his back this entire time, and I'm sure he received enough money financially that he doesn't have to work if he lives a frugal lifestyle.

He was dis-armed that night ! 

Pretty good recap though not complete and from The Insider.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-prosecutions-witnesses-kyle-rittenhouse-224336268.html

Posting sequential shots from frames of shooting.
One on approach and one being dis-armed.

Kyle was physically attacked by two and let one with a gun drawn get too close.
(Not counting guy who kicks him the head and ran away.)
So much video….

This is the photo that cinched the self defense claim.  it's the split second that Rittenhouse fired at Bicep Boy.

The Glock is clearly visible in his right hand and pointed in the direction of Rittenhouse's head. 

Clear cut case of self defense.  If Bicep Boy hadn't continued to advance on Rittenhouse with Glock in hand, but instead took a few steps back, he'd have not been shot.  That's clear in the few seconds that BB froze, held his hands up, and was NOT shot.

If someone points a firearm at you, you don't need anyone to tell you what their intentions are.

Todays trail went well again.  Thought the prosecution did a poor job.  Attacked witnesses and tried to spin a false narrative.

Another decent recap.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-live-updates-120029165.html

“Grosskreutz was also livestreaming on Facebook and captured the moment he heard the gunshots that killed Rosenbaum. Grosskreutz ran toward the shots and encountered Rittenhouse, running in the opposite direction.

He believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter, he testified. He took his handgun out and said he only intended to use it “if I had to.”

After Rittenhouse shot Anthony Huber, Grosskreutz, a few feet away, put his hands in the air and testified he saw Rittenhouse “re-rack” his rifle. Grosskreutz said he believed Rittenhouse was not “accepting my surrender” and the only way for him to survive was to close the distance with Rittenhouse.

Then Rittenhouse shot him, according to a bystander video shown during the trial.”

Who re-racks their rifle ? ( edit: no jam)
Too many movies ? 

Like Flapp said. Guy lies over and over.
But soooo much video……