Kyle Rittenhouse Book Sparks Uproar

And this is why Aussies don’t want your level of gun uncontrol - basically we couldn’t be arsed having to carry a gun everywhere

 

As a non American the outcome of the trial shocked me because the laws relating to self defence are so different here nd in the UK

 

Yeah they can be different, especially with stand your ground laws. But the main problem is too many people go and fall for the "fly by night" legal defense seminars by those who think being armed and "stand your ground" will protect you from making stupid mistakes with the firearm and another individual.

 

In a lot of ways our cultures are similar but when it comes to guns - chalk and cheese

 

So much nonsense to unpack. Again, the definition of an active shooter is someone in a populated location trying to kill people indiscriminately. Rittenhouse never did that. Additionally, the attention was already on Rittenhouse before he shot Rosenbaum because they were pissed that he put out the fire they started. They were yelling and already in pursuit.

It's nonsense that the people who were shot were on trial. That's not even remotely true.

1. Rosenbaum's criminal record and the fact that he was just released from a mental institution was largely inadmissible. The defense was focused on the self-defense aspect of Rosenbaum's actions that were directly related to him being shot. The fact that he likes to diddle little children wasn't brought into the picture.

2. Anthony Huber's extensive criminal record and violent history was also largely admissible. The prosecution wanted his family to testify about how kind he was and the defense said they would force them to admit on the stand that he held a knife to the neck and stomachs of his family members multiple times, threatened to kill them multiple times, etc. So they were never called and his character wasn't brought into the trial.

3. Grosskreutz chose to take the stand and was obviously coached. He was using his time in the spotlight because he wanted to sue Rittenhouse civilly. The chances of that were vaporized faster than his bicep when he admitted he was only shot after pointing his gun at Rittenhouse.

4. The child molestor's friend who fired the round in the air, Ziminski, was never disclosed to the defense so they couldn't call him as a witness. And the prosecution refrained from charging him until after Rittenhouse's case was closed because they didn't want him identified to the defense because his testimony would have been devastating to their case.

The only way to have a trial based on self-defense is to discuss the actions of the people who attacked the victim. The judge limited character discussions and kept them all to the facts. They went frame by frame of the available video and analyzed the actions. There's absolutely no other way to have the trial. Claiming the assailants were "really the ones on trial" and Rittenhouse was acquitted because of that is extremely ignorant devoid of logic.

 

This also isn't true. The business owner took the stand and he tripped all over himself. Not only did he want their help he directly asked for it. Business insurance doesn't generally cover arson and they were losing a ton of money when these vehicles were being set on fire. They were trying to make an insurance claim anyway and the knowledge of his request for their help was damaging to his claim. He was caught lying repeatedly. Worse, it seemed apparent that the prosecution knew he was lying and called him anyway and allowed him to lie on the stand. Yet another case of prosecutorial misconduct in this case. Hell, after they arrived he gave them the key to the business and literally handed them a ladder so they could get on the roof of the dealership.

 

Rittenhouse didn't stand his ground. He fled from everyone. Not sure if there's a connection or if you're just speaking generally. I believe Wisconsin is a stand-your-ground state, but it's irrelevant to the case because Rittenhouse didn't do that.

 

Yeah, but you guys have sexy accents that get the girls. We have to try to use money to get the girls lol

 

It’s all in how you say G’day .

 

Winner! Winner!

That said:
Pre-order his book for $22.99
NO RELEASE DATE or Publisher mentioned.
Says it will be shipped as soon as they can.

'This is a pre-sale! We will ship as soon as we can. Thank you!'

'Coming to a book store near you...'


"Step right up" Kiddos. lol
https://shop.rittenhousebook.com/pr...nhousebook-website&utm_content=shopify-button

 

First, Wisconsin does not have a stand-your-ground law for self-defense. I understand that KR fled in the first shooting. But the key is why did he shoot an unarmed person. Yes, he made a verbal attack, but even in his testimony under gross examination, that he could not explain how Rosenbaum "lunged" at him. My point is he should not have "gone on patrol" thinking he was in the military or a police officer trying to do "his duty." That's the problem. Too many people think they know what they are doing when in reality they don't have a clue, especially when it comes to "protecting property or people." If he stayed at the store where he was to begin with, none of this would have happened. If the police there did their freakng job to begin with, none of this would have happened. That is the sad reality.

 

The business owner testified he did not ask nor want that type of help to begin with. That was abundantly clear. The defense tried and won the obfuscation issue upon cross examination.

 

1. Criminal records have nothing to do with what happened that day. That is why I said the victims were on trial, not the accused and why I gave the comparison of rape victims being on trial instead of the accused who raped the person. Usually criminal trials and criminal procedures limit severely how much the defense can use the victim's personal history against them, but it usually has to come in the form of testimony first by the prosecution witness. The judge allowed carte blanch on the persons who were shot in his motions.
2. Again, that has nothing to do with the night at hand. Even murder trials where the victim was buying weed or was selling weed as a distributor has a criminal history is not going to pay any part of the trial by the person who allegedly murdered him for whatever reason.
3. Grosskrueutz claimed he was there as a "reporter" for the ALCU and tried to document the whole event. By any definition, he was an eyewitness. Again, nothing about his past should be used as part of the judgement by the jury on whether to believe him or not. That is the whole point of a trial if you are a victim or a witness.
4. Ziminski's testimony was denied by the judge to be presented. He was an eyewitness to the shooting of Rosembaum. That is why the defense could not call on him, neither could the prosecution. But the defense knew who he was. That is why they filed a motion to have him and his testimony excluded as evidence.

 

Actually the fact that he shot ONLY the people that were directly attacking him shows great situational awareness. There were plenty of people chasing him, mainly to keep him in sight for the police, but only a few actually attacked him. And those were the only ones he shot. Someone without such awareness more than likely would have shot more than just those that did get shot. Furthermore the people that attacked him were armed. One with a skateboard, the other with a gun. The person he initially shot was grabbing for his gun. There was one other person that did not get shot but had attacked Rittenhouse. But he only used his body to attack and then left. People still don't know who that was afaik.

 

Let’s face it - the odds are remote to non existent that he wrote it himself. The publishers would have gotten a ghost writer or two to actually do the work

 

Well color me surprised..NOT!
A Republican swamp scum says he's the publisher.
So swamp scum and Rittenhouses's lawyer are writing the book. lol
No bidding war by publishing houses..Boohoo,

"His book, which listed his publisher, Michael Quinn Sullivan, and his lawyer, Mark Richards, as contributors, had been characterized as a story of “survival, resilience, and justice” on a social media post seen by 5.2 million people on X.

“Two years ago today, accused of unjust charges, I heard ‘NOT GUILTY’ five times over from a jury of my peers who heard the facts,” Rittenhouse wrote.

Sullivan joined Court TV’s Julie Grant on Court TV and said Rittenhouse, while acquitted of state criminal charges, is still facing multiple civil lawsuits lodged by the estate of one of the shooting victims, Joseph Rosenbaum, and Anthony Huber, who was shot and killed while trying to disarm Rittenhouse after Rosenbaum was killed.'


cont:
https://www.courttv.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-wrote-a-book/

 

"characterized as a story of “survival, resilience, and justice"



Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse's $2 million legal funds won his ...

Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2021/11/21 › kyl...

https://archive.li/bzvqA

Nov 21, 2021 — Rittenhouse's $2 million legal defense funds enabled his lawyers, before his trial, to stage separate “practice” jury trials — one in which 18- ...


Kyle Rittenhouse to get $1 million of bail money, gun to be ...

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
https://www.jsonline.com › story › news › 2022/01/28

Jan 28, 2022 — Kyle Rittenhouse's AR-15-style rifle is headed for a crushing machine, and he'll get nearly $1 million of his crowd-funded bail, ...

 

You're not allowed to.

 

So lesson to prosecutors don't maliciously prosecute people or they'll become rich and famous for beating you.

 

Want to bet that the ghost writers are employed by the NRA??

 

doesn't he still have civil cases ongoing?

 

I remember in the OJ case they took any monies from the book, wonder if that happens here

"Kyle Rittenhouse is being sued by the estate of the man he killed, complains that lawsuits make it 'harder for me to move on with my life'"

https://www.insider.com/kyle-rittenhouse-sued-estate-man-he-killed-self-defense-2023-8

 

big brother doesn't trust them

 

"I stand by the adage that it is better for a 1000 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted unless it's someone that I hate politically!!!!"

The modern tribal statist mindset.

 

No he did not.

One of his RELATIVES testified that he did not want the help.

The owner never testified at all and for some strange reason the testimony of his relative was not considered hearsay