Rittenhouse was attacked by 4 people.

He said repeatedly that Rosenbaum and Huber tried to take his gun - so there is a prima facie claim for using lethal force in self-defense.

Grosskreutz had a gun - so that shooting is a possible self-defense also.

?Rittenhpouse was well-coached to repeat constantly that he feared death or great bodily harm in those cases.

BUT HE NEVER ONCE SAID THAT HE FEARED DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM from "jump kick man" - in direct or in cross.

so it was just a non-lethal fight and rittenhouse is clearly guilty of attempted murder for taking two shots at him at point-blank range !!!

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-during-homicide-trial-transcript-november-10

direct:
"
Attorney 1: (09:43)
Okay. And you’re saying the last person in that group continued to come at you?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (09:48)
Yes.

Attorney 1: (09:49)
And describe what happened?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (09:52)
The last person? I don’t know his name. I don’t think he was ever identified, jumps at me with his, he was wearing boots, I believe. And as he’s running at me and jumping as his boot is making contact with my face, I fired two shots at him.

Attorney 1: (10:13)
Why did you shoot at him?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (10:15)
I thought if I would to be knocked out or he would’ve stomped my face in if I didn’t fire.

"
cross:

https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/A7O97pOTyqr5Uhejo4HM7hpXs-vzdMLEc7w5J2_rk4uX-fpGgO6mwaRWXjymKd6V29htasJuffOuGIHHejB299YJJCM?loadFrom=SharedLink

"
Let's continue. Pause. There is an individual who comes at you and jumps towards you and attempts to kick you, correct?

He does kick me, yes.

And you fire two shots directly at him with your AR-15, correct?

Yes.

You intended to hit him with those bullets, correct?

I intended for him, yes.

At that close range, it's a miracle that you missed, right?

I don't know.

You intended to kill him with those shots, didn't you?

No.

Did you even care whether or not those two rounds were going to kill him?

I didn't want to have to kill anybody that night.

In this moment, you're making a deliberate decision to pull the trigger twice, correct?

Yes.

That wasn't an accident, that was your conscious decision, wasn't it?

Yes.

And you're firing an AR-15 at close range to this individual, correct?

Yes.

And you knew full well that if you hit him with one or both of those bullets, it could kill him. Right?

There's that possibility.

If you hit him with one of those, wouldn't you agree it's a pretty strong likelihood you're going to kill him?

I don't know if...

Did that even factor into your mind at that point? Did you even care whether you were going to kill him or not?

I didn't want to have to kill anybody. I was being attacked. That's why I shot him. I shot at him.

You shot at him with the intent of hitting him and killing him, correct?

I didn't want to kill anybody.

Then why are you shooting at someone with an AR-15 at close range if you don't want to kill him?

Because he's attacking me and stomping my face in. Jumping and kicking my face in that.

You didn't see any weapons on that person, did you?

No.

"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"S K" wrote in message news:5c93f913-c909-4011-98ed-f37d53637fd1n@googlegroups.com...

Rittenhouse was attacked by 4 people.

He said repeatedly that Rosenbaum and Huber tried to take his gun - so
there is a prima facie claim for using lethal force in self-defense.

Grosskreutz had a gun - so that shooting is a possible self-defense also.

?Rittenhpouse was well-coached to repeat constantly that he feared death or >great bodily harm in those cases.

BUT HE NEVER ONCE SAID THAT HE FEARED DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM from "jump >kick man" - in direct or in cross.

so it was just a non-lethal fight and rittenhouse is clearly guilty of >attempted murder for taking two shots at him at point-blank range !!!

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-during-homicide-trial-transcript-november-10

After hearing all the evidence - including the passage you cite - a legally seated jury of his peers found him not guilty on all charges.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

There is no requirement for Rittenhouse to say anything. He didn't even
have to testify. His attorney speaks for him as to what his defense is.

I think Wisconsin law requires the government to negate the self defense argument and the prosecutor failed to do that.

The result is not-guilty



On 12/2/2021 4:23 PM, S K wrote:

Rittenhouse was attacked by 4 people.

He said repeatedly that Rosenbaum and Huber tried to take his gun - so there is a prima facie claim for using lethal force in self-defense.

Grosskreutz had a gun - so that shooting is a possible self-defense also.

?Rittenhpouse was well-coached to repeat constantly that he feared death or great bodily harm in those cases.

BUT HE NEVER ONCE SAID THAT HE FEARED DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM from "jump kick man" - in direct or in cross.

so it was just a non-lethal fight and rittenhouse is clearly guilty of attempted murder for taking two shots at him at point-blank range !!!

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-during-homicide-trial-transcript-november-10

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-5, Roy wrote:

There is no requirement for Rittenhouse to say anything. He didn't even
have to testify. His attorney speaks for him as to what his defense is.

I think Wisconsin law requires the government to negate the self defense argument and the prosecutor failed to do that.

The result is not-guilty
On 12/2/2021 4:23 PM, S K wrote:

Rittenhouse was attacked by 4 people.

He said repeatedly that Rosenbaum and Huber tried to take his gun - so there is a prima facie claim for using lethal force in self-defense.

Grosskreutz had a gun - so that shooting is a possible self-defense also.

?Rittenhpouse was well-coached to repeat constantly that he feared death or great bodily harm in those cases.

BUT HE NEVER ONCE SAID THAT HE FEARED DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM from "jump kick man" - in direct or in cross.

so it was just a non-lethal fight and rittenhouse is clearly guilty of attempted murder for taking two shots at him at point-blank range !!!

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-during-homicide-trial-transcript-november-10

He DID testify and HIS LAWYER elicited from him the testimony that he shot two bullets at someone at point blank range and he never once claimed that he feared death or great bodily harm from him when he shot those bullets.

on this count, there was jury nullification and/or incompetence from both the prosecution and the defense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/3/2021 6:43 AM, S K wrote:

He DID testify and HIS LAWYER elicited from him the testimony that he shot two bullets at someone at point blank range and he never once claimed that he feared death or great bodily harm from him when he shot those bullets.

on this count, there was jury nullification and/or incompetence from both the prosecution and the defense.

If the jury believes that a reasonable person would have feared death or
severe injury, then no further evidence needs to be submitted. If
somebody kicked me in the head, I would assume I was in danger of being
knocked out and subjected to whatever that hyped-up mob might do to me.

I don't think this was jury nullification. As for "incompetence", I
wonder if both sides decided that they
should leave well enough alone on that one.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 10:32:40 AM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:

On 12/3/2021 6:43 AM, S K wrote:

He DID testify and HIS LAWYER elicited from him the testimony that he shot two bullets at someone at point blank range and he never once claimed that he feared death or great bodily harm from him when he shot those bullets.

on this count, there was jury nullification and/or incompetence from both the prosecution and the defense.

If the jury believes that a reasonable person would have feared death or severe injury, then no further evidence needs to be submitted. If
somebody kicked me in the head, I would assume I was in danger of being knocked out and subjected to whatever that hyped-up mob might do to me.

I don't think this was jury nullification. As for "incompetence", I
wonder if both sides decided that they
should leave well enough alone on that one.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

Actually the whole case boils down to the videos.

Rittenhouse's lawyers belabored the point that he feared for his life in the other incidents, but let the video speak for itself for "jump-kick man".

He clearly attacked rittenhouse and it can be argued both ways - a reasonable man may deem the attack lethal - while another may think it was minor - after all rittenhouse wasn't marked in any way from the kick.

The prosecution had a good case to claim that it was just non-lethal streetfighting - but they let it go. they browbeat Rittenhouse that he was trying to kill jump-kick-man - but then if the jury believed rittenhouse feared for his life - he gets and
got a "murder for free" card.

the logic that rittenhouse was in danger of being knocked out allows him to kill everybody there.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)