Jump to content
tailingpermit

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, happycamper said:

How is it not comparable? 
I mean, obviously, the Rittenhouse case is unique. But as far as literally every other killing in the US in 2020, they are as close as they get.

And the outcome isn't REMOTELY similar.

Lawlor, it is starting to feel like you consider state hits of leftists acceptable and the state condoning right wing killers unacceptable. 

How are they similar? This is dumb af. A man lay in wait, pulled his concealed gun, and seconds later executed a person walking down the street who at the last second pulled bear mace as he was staring down his killers barrel.

A man chased a teen blocks, cornered him, threatened, tried to take his weapon, and died for it.

Super similar.

The teen surrendered to police as soon as he could. The man who cold bloodedly shot a person walking down the street fled, hid, reached for a weapon, and got killed.

Super duper similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

How are they similar? This is dumb af. A man lay in wait, pulled his concealed gun, and seconds later executed a person walking down the street who at the last second pulled bear mace as he was staring down his killers barrel.

Lmao Danielson was running around macing and beating people like crazy. 

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

A man chased a teen blocks, cornered him, threatened, tried to take his weapon, and died for it.

Super similar.

The teen surrendered to police as soon as he could. The man who cold bloodedly shot a person walking down the street fled, hid, reached for a weapon, and got killed.

Super duper similar.

Yes, it's similar.
Two people tried to protect themselves from assault.

One? Hero to half the country.

The other? Killed by federal agents who notably didn't even want to arrest him.

Your narrative that "without politics" rittenhouse wouldn't have been charged is insane. 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

But if you're a right wing protestor and your organization is buddy buddy with the local PD, your killer will just get killed! So don't practice self-defense against right wing protestors, right?

 

 

Dont accept the premise. This is just like pointing at chicago when St. Louis has a much higher murder rate. BLM protests were not nearly as dangerous as they are being perceived. You have 9000 BLM marches in America where we love our guns, it would be a miracle to have a murder rate of less than .2% per event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

The more interesting conversation for me about the Rittenhouse situation was whether he SHOULD be criminally liable for a murder or manslaughter crime. The debate around whether he could claim self-defense in WI just wasn’t a very interesting discussion, to me.

Like is it self-defense? Based on how WI laws are written, yea. And? That’s like if a person is arguing against drug laws and the only thing a person says to  rebut them is “well federal law says it’s illegal”. Kind of misses the whole point of the debate.

It's a good thing you are allowed to defend your person with lethal force.

You want that change?  

It's not an extension of castle doctrine, at all.  It's your person.  Not your sweatshirt or your gun, @smltwnrckr

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

This is nonsense, there are probably people murdered at NFL games in excess .2% of the time. Should we send patriots with ARs to make it better? For reference .2% would be .512 murders per NFL season...

Well at least an NFL game where somebody is murdered might be a white jurors biggest fear. But nobody, not one idiot, would ever equate an NFL game where someone is murdered with all the others. It would be unanimously decried as awful. But that didn’t happen here. It’s still not happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It's a good thing you are allowed to defend your person with lethal force.

You want that change?  

It's not an extension of castle doctrine, at all.  It's your person.  Not your sweatshirt or your gun, @smltwnrckr

 

Yeah I gotta agree with this. If you can't defend your person with lethal force, you get, say, dickish sociopath billionaire bros who will beat the shit out of you but if you try to fight back, have their posse members hop in to defend them, to pick a notable historical example. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

Well at least an NFL game where somebody is murdered might be a white jurors biggest fear. But nobody, not one idiot, would ever equate an NFL game where someone is murdered with all the others. It would be unanimously decried as awful. But that didn’t happen here. It’s still not happening.

Well... are we talking murder, or homicide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Yeah I gotta agree with this. If you can't defend your person with lethal force, you get, say, dickish sociopath billionaire bros who will beat the shit out of you but if you try to fight back, have their posse members hop in to defend them, to pick a notable historical example. 

Now if you want to create new laws on the books to criminalize Kyle being there with the express stated purpose of defending others property, a armed vigilantism law, I could listen and get behind that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Lmao Danielson was running around macing and beating people like crazy. 

Yes, it's similar.
Two people tried to protect themselves from assault.

One? Hero to half the country.

The other? Killed by federal agents who notably didn't even want to arrest him.

Your narrative that "without politics" rittenhouse wouldn't have been charged is insane. 

No it isn’t, because all you have left is a political narrative. It’s obvious the two situations aren’t the same to anyone not desperate to wipe egg of their face. Absolutely nobody brought up Reinoehl ever again until you ran out of arguments. It’s over happy. We have the videos. Gaslighting isn’t going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Now if you want to create new laws on the books to criminalize Kyle being there with the express stated purpose of defending others property, a armed vigilantism law, I could listen and get behind that.

 

I don't know how you can possibly have a law against vigilantism that doesn't curtail the right to a militia, the right to freely associate, and the right to bear arms. it would be similar to la county banning black kids from hanging out with their gang injunctions in the '90s.

1 minute ago, tailingpermit said:

Easy there, Lefty Lefterson.  

fair

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

No it isn’t, because all you have left is a political narrative. It’s obvious the two situations aren’t the same to anyone not desperate to wipe egg of their face. Absolutely nobody brought up Reinoehl ever again until you ran out of arguments. It’s over happy. We have the videos. Gaslighting isn’t going to work.

how is it a political narrative????

Two guys who shouldn't have been there, both exposed to the danger of assault, two tremendously different outcomes. 

Your initial claim was hilariously incorrect. self defense is prosecuted all the time. legitimate murders aren't prosecuted all the time. this is america. privilege - be it fiscal, political, cultural - governs outcomes as much as any facts
and are you a gen z communist on twitter? cause this isn't what gaslighting is

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Now if you want to create new laws on the books to criminalize Kyle being there with the express stated purpose of defending others property, a armed vigilantism law, I could listen and get behind that.

 

Not that it would ever happen, but it only takes one fully armed Nike store during a riot to get people thinking, maybe this isn’t a great idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smltwnrckr said:

So... the incentive seems to be, bring a gun to a politically unstable situation and make sure to kill people so you can claim self defense.

Cool.

Yeah pretty much. I'm not even saying I disagree with the self defense determination but it seems to me everyone in this situation (barring the first guy that was shot,that is more complicated) was doing the legal/correct thing. KR was being chased by people and threatened so he defended himself. The other two guys saw a man kill someone else sobthey pursued an active shooter. Skateboard guy was brave/stupid enough to take on a guy with a gun with a skateboard to take down an active shooter. If handgun guy killed KR I would think we would be in the same place today except I do t think the people defending and worshipping KR would be doing the same thing to the handgun guy if he had been quicker because teams and shit. Actually, happy is right he never would ha e made it through the night if he shot KR. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I don't know how you can possibly have a law against vigilantism that doesn't curtail the right to a militia, the right to freely associate, and the right to bear arms. it would be similar to la county banning black kids from hanging out with their gang injunctions in the '90s.

 

Yeah, it's tricky.  But reexamining self defense law is not the answer IMO.  A not guilty verdict would have more concerning implications than the guilty verdict has.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Well at least an NFL game where somebody is murdered might be a white jurors biggest fear. But nobody, not one idiot, would ever equate an NFL game where someone is murdered with all the others. It would be unanimously decried as awful. But that didn’t happen here. It’s still not happening.

Yes they would, lol! Thats exactly what happens anytime there is violence at NFL games. Everyone bemoans how violent and drunk people are and how its tough to take small children...

You are basically saying that if you go to a BLM protest and damage property the punishment could be death and its your fault for being there even though any other time we would agree the punishment should fit the crime. No one likes the violence, the rioting, the killings, the real issue is why people are in the streets at all. And because we dont agree about that we are here arguing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It's a good thing you are allowed to defend your person with lethal force.

You want that change?  

It's not an extension of castle doctrine, at all.  It's your person.  Not your sweatshirt or your gun, @smltwnrckr

 

I think he did a great deal to create the situation that resulted. Nobody elected or hired him to police the riot with a rifle, and he had no business/property interest in the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tspoke said:

Yeah pretty much. I'm not even saying I disagree with the self defense determination but it seems to me everyone in this situation (barring the first guy that was shot,that is more complicated) was doing the legal/correct thing. KR was being chased by people and threatened so he defended himself. The other two guys saw a man kill someone else sobthey pursued an active shooter. Skateboard guy was brave/stupid enough to take on a guy with a gun with a skateboard to take down an active shooter. If handgun guy killed KR I would think we would be in the same place today except I do t think the people defending and worshipping KR would be doing the same thing to the handgun guy if he had been quicker because teams and shit. Actually, happy is right he never would ha e made it through the night if he shot KR. 

 

 

bingo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SalinasSpartan said:

I think he did a great deal to create the situation that resulted. Nobody elected or hire him to police the riot with a rifle, and he had no business/property interest in the area.

We agree.  As I said multiple times in this thread, I could go out tonight and create a situation where I could use lethal force and claim self defense legally.  It would make me a total PoS.  Kyle is a shit head, but a guilty verdict would have worse implications than the bad portents the not guilty verdict portends, which is bad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

We agree.  As I said multiple times in this thread, I could go out tonight and create a situation where I could use lethal force and claim self defense legally.  It would make me a total PoS.  Kyle is a shit head, but a guilty verdict would have worse implications than the bad portents the not guilty verdict portends, which is bad.

Well I would like to see the laws written in such a way where he was liable for involuntary manslaughter. That’s just my opinion though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...