Posted on 09/06/2020 7:07:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
I downloaded and read the charges filed against Kyle Rittenhouse by Kenosha assistant district attorney Angelina Gabriele. If I were on the jury and read only the D.A.'s side of the story, I would acquit Rittenhouse for the most serious charges without even listening to his side. The only one that looks to me as if it could have merit is "possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18," which is a misdemeanor.
Let's start with Rittenhouse's first assailant, Joseph D. Rosenbaum. If this is Joseph Don Rosenbaum from Arizona, he served prison time, which is usually consistent with a felony conviction. I was unable to confirm from AZ or WI records that he was a sexual offender, as some have claimed. The following is not Rittenhouse's side of the story as told by himself or his attorney; it is the prosecutor's side of the story. The "probable cause" portion of the document says (I am copying from an OCR transcription of the original PDF document so the accuracy might not be 100%, and emphasis is mine):
Following the defendant is Rosenbaum ... The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag.
Following the defendant is Rosenbaum ... The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
That would end his career and cause instant public reaction (more riots) so it won’t happen. His job is to prosecute and let the jury decide based on the law and evidence.
It’s more likely that first shit was fired in the air by the professional agitator who was on scene with his sidekick porn starlet woman sidekick.
Well, we no longer have to worry about cities burning if we do x, y or z.
Well, what would expect from a low IQ prosecutor??
“We will charge him as an adult and apply statutes made for children.”
I've watched the video countless times. Who is this porn starlet sidekick?
Wasn’t there a head shot to the temple? In the video it looks like a huge hole in his head.
* It's a two hour video and they don't start talking about the Rittenhouse case until an hour into the video, but it's very informative about the specifics of Wisconsin law.
This take, with the exception of the first shooting (which I couldn’t see) is exactly what my take was after watching the various videos one time.
If I was a juror in this case , after hearing testimony and watching all of the videos, I would have to vote that the
prosecutor is guilty of dereliction of duty and hate crimes.
10 years in prison sounds about right.
Later.
Good prosecutors don’t go forward with cases they know will likely lose. They dismiss or reduce the charge. Therefore this prosecutor is a political hack and will not dismiss.
CC
Writers today seem incapable of reading, or even doing a bit of research. It has already been shown repeatedly that under the law in Wisconsin it is not illegal for a person between the age of 16 and 18 to possess a rifle. The law itself is not written very clearly and you have to read past the first sentence in order to understand what it really says. Apparently that is too much work for a lot of article writers.
It would be very helpful for our nation if people writing articles could at least try to write something truthful.
Here is a link to a post I made previously which has links to the actual Wisconsin law.
And no, the various comments in my prior linked post aren’t intended for you. I just didn’t want to retype all the links to the Wisconsin statutes.
WI statute 948.60: Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
www.docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
He was not illegally carrying a rifle, its a convoluted law mainly pertaining to carrying short barreled rifles and shotguns, which are illegal, and the other statute would be if he were under 16, so, what they are saying isnt true from the start.
Rittenhouse then ran, toward the police, but he was then confronted by THREE males who clearly intended to harm him. THEY were the ones who initiated violence against him, and all three could have done something to cause death or great bodily harm to him.
The rush to charge Rittenhouse in the face of obvious self defense should lead to complaints to the Wisconsin bar association and the DA should at the minimum be disbarred.
The leftist DA is being circumspect.
What was in the bottle?
Gasoline?
Molotov cocktail waiting to be lit?
If empty what was rosenbaum doing with an empty bottle in a plastic bag?
A reasonable fear of severe injury or death that justifies the use of deadly force can exist by circumstances that are not completely the fault of the person who has been killed.
He chased Kyle (his fault)
He threw something at Kyle (his fault)
Someone nearby fired a gun making Kyle think it came from the guy behind him (not his fault).
It is also reasonable to assume the guy chasing him had a gun, because who would be so stupid as to chase someone with a firearm without one.
Chasing someone is an act of aggression. Chasing someone that you know is carrying a firearm is just plain stupid. If you do that, and some unfortunate coincidence like this occurs at that time, you may justifiably be shot.
We need the ballistics’s and if that report is not favorable to KR then we would have already seen it.
What ever it was, it was on fire until it hit the ground. So in my mind it would be a deadly threat.
And even that one shouldn't apply in a case in which, had the minor not had the weapon, his right to life would have been violated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.