★ WELCOME ★

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== The Rittenhouse Videos (Posted in March 2021) ======

 --- //[[noemail@thomasclark.us|Tom Clark]] 2021/11/22 17:41//

{{youtube>tkTnQfjRvk0?medium}}

**Kyle Rittenhouse | Murder or Self-Defense?\\
by Youtuber Matt Orfalea**

Leftist media has no excuse for demonizing Kyle Rittenhouse. Multiple videos showing that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense was available almost immediately after the shootings (August 25th, 2020?). By March of 2021 Youtuber Matt Orfalea had put together a short documentary showing exactly what happened that night. If you haven't seen it put together, in a very clear manner, then take a look at Orfalea's video (above).

There are some facts that aren't in the documentary (IIRC).

It's my understanding:

1. The FBI had surveillance footage that was shown at trial. This video shows that Rittenhouse did not appear to be chasing Joseph Rosenbaum or anyone else just prior to Joseph Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse. In the FBI video, Rittenhouse seemed to be jogging down the street where there was some action. Rosenbaum was in front of Rittenhouse, but Rosenbaum turned off the sidewalk and Rittenhouse just kept going by. Once Rittenhouse had passed Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum started chasing Rittenhouse.

2. Rittenhouse was not illegally carrying a rifle. In Wisconsin, you can be under 18 and carry a long rifle. It is against the law for a minor to carry a short-barreled rifle. I can't remember how short the rifle and-or the barrel has to be for a rifle to be short-barreled, but I did watch the judge query the prosecutor asking the prosecutor if the barrel length and overall weapon length was short enough to be considered a short-barreled rifle. The prosecutor admitted that the barrel and the overall length of the weapon was not short enough to fall under the statute. That's why the illegal weapon charge was dismissed before jury deliberations. In fact, the charge was bullcrap all along and should never have been brought.

3. Rittenhouse's mom did not drive Kyle to the riots.

Anyway, it is my belief that the prosecutor brought the charges to punish Rittenhouse. Being charged with a crime is traumatic. Facing a jury is traumatic. So, prosecutors will often over-charge defendants in the hopes of the defendant simply pleading guilty in exchange for a reduced charge and a reduced sentence. Usually when they don't have a case, they drop it just before trial. I suspect that the prosecutor thought maybe the media had already convicted Rittenhouse, and all he needed was a jury that believed media bullcrap and-or he could just demonize the kid and-or maybe the jury would be scared of further riots and so would find Rittenhouse guilty despite the law. I don't believe, not for one second, that the prosecutor thought he had a legitimate case under the law. He was banking on a trial by media and a browbeat jury. 

Now there's been a lot of speculation as to why the prosecutor did several things that could have ended up in a mistrial. I suspect that the prosecutor is a zealot and he mainly wanted to further divide the nation by acting like the country is nothing but a bunch of gun toting racists. So what he did was try to do things that he believed would make him look like a good prosecutor and make the judge look like a Rittenhouse sympathizer.

Maybe the prosecutor was being a total screw-up because he wanted a mistrial and he wanted a mistrial in order to put Rittenhouse through the wringer again (i.e. punishment by trial and further punishment by retrial). There was no way that the prosecutor's case was going to get better, except maybe if the judge was going to retire and there would be a new judge for the retrial. Anyway, that would only work if the judge granted the motion for a mistrial prior to the jury turning in a not-guilty verdict. Because if the jury rendered a guilty verdict, the defense's motion for a mistrial is obviously going to be withdrawn. So a rational prosecutor would never want a mistrial after getting a guilty verdict. 

The fact that the prosecutor would openly be delving into mistrial territory, to me shows that the prosecutor had little hope in winning the case in the courtroom. This was all about getting a plea deal, trial by punishment, and sewing seeds of civil war.
Trace: • 20211119-is-the-f-35-lightning-ii-a-dumpster-fire
★ WELCOME ★

Search

Navigation

Print/export

Helpers
