I'm pissed about this because if his victims were "rioters" then Rittenhouse is a "rioter" too.
Morally, and ethically I don’t disagree. With a small caveat (below), but as I said in an earlier post, none of them had a legit “claim” on who could be there or not.
Sure. You made a very simplistic statement on the situation (KR didn't break any law) you probably did not intend the way it read. But then I see you arguing 1st vs. 2nd degree murder and I get annoyed, because it depends on the state how such is defined.
Very true. Obviously it’s my interpretation of the situation based on the trial and what I know - admittedly, not much. No intention to annoy you.
----
Edit: I watched the snippets from the Grosskreutz testimony and I got even more pissed, because based on all the A-HAs I expected to learn that Grosskreutz was the one shooting before the first person was killed by Rittenhouse. He only testified to what we already saw on the video and what happened after KR already dropped 2-3 people. How the fuck is this exculpatory?
I agree that in itself the testimony is not exculpatory, and certain cheers from a certain crowd are uncalled for and also premature. However, if you put it in context with the rest of the testimonies, you’ll see why it was a damning testimony for the prosecution (and he was a witness called by the prosecution). Let me try to summarize my understanding of the importance of Mr Grosskreutz’s testimony (to the best of my abilities):
An undisputed fact is that there were three shootings on that night.
- Shooting 1 is by an unknown individual while Mr R was running away.
- Shooting 2 is by Mr R, in which Individual 1 (I1 from now) was killed.
- Shooting 3 is by Mr R in which I2 (Skateboard man) was killed, and I3 (Mr G) was injured.
Now, the prosecution tried to prove that I1 was illegally shot by focusing on the shot in the back, and that I3 demonstrates that Mr R was trying to kill because he shot I3, and I3 is seen with his hands up. In other words the prosecution tried to use I3 as evidence of the mental state of Mr R (premeditation to kill unknown individuals, basically).
The argument about I1 collapsed when the FBI drone footage was enhanced and revealed, and when (yesterday) the ME testified that I1 was shot in the back from the top because he was lounging forward (=reaching for the gun). Several other videos and witnesses (by the prosecution!) basically verified that I1 was a disturbed individual, and that he was looking for violence. He also threatened, directly, Mr R.
I2 seems not much in dispute. It doesn’t seem the prosecution talks much about him because the video, the ME (or at least some doctors), and the police confirm that I2 hit Mr R with his skateboard, causing trauma, and that he was shot after he hit Mr R (I believe multiple times) on the ground.
This is where I3 comes into play. I believe that Prior to his testimony some of the events surrounding I3 were disputed. I3 confirmed that he had a gun, that he displayed it, and that he ran towards Mr R that was running away. There was some back and forth between I3 and the defense because I3 claimed that he wasn’t chasing Mr R but was unable to explain why he was running towards Mr R, and then he was on top of Mr R. At any rate, I3 is in the video with his hands up. I3 then confirmed that after a bit, he reached for his gun, and he pointed it at Mr R, and Mr R then and only then shot. Then Mr R stopped and ran towards the police again. This damns the argument that Mr R just wanted to kill people during the shooting (important distinction).
So the question remained about Mr R. Was he there requested by someone or just to provoke. Another witness was the owner of the car dealer. Another prosecution witness that ended up being awful for the prosecution. He claimed basically that he had no idea who Mr R was, and that he didn’t want him there. It was then found out that the dealership is shady af and that to avoid probing by the FBI they tried to distance themselves from Mr R. It seems that they also lied under oath. Several witnesses and documents demonstrate not only that the dealership owners knew that Mr R and friends were there, but that they even paid them, and purchased some material for them. They also took several pictures together. I wouldn’t be surprised if the owners are trying to flee to Bermuda right now.
Another note: yesterday the defense also called an amateur photographer that was on scene. He took many of the pictures that we have seen. His testimony to the defense was almost useless, the only notable thing was that he mentioned how chaotic the situation was. But you gotta watch the prosecutor’s cross questioning. It’s handbook of what NOT to do, ever. This will be studied for years in my opinion. Basically they completely misread the witness and tried to have him contradict himself. The result? He confirmed that the two prosecutors tried to have him change his written testimony because they also have another trial related to this one. When they tried to prove that he simply was misremembering, he demonstrated that it was them misremembering and that he as an incredible memory. Worse than that, the prosecutor started being frustrated and acted like a total jerk, asking irrelevant questions, and even questioning why he (the photographer) would sell the pictures to the media (he’s a photographer…), and why he couldn’t remember every single detail (he was shocked and they didn’t ask him specific questions). More than that, the prosecutor basically killed the other trial by the other prosecutor (he wasn’t happy).
All of the above is my understanding and I am not trained in any way whatsoever to claim other than amateurish understanding.
This is probably my last post on the topic for a bit. Let’s see how it plays out.
