Jump to content
tailingpermit

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Recommended Posts

Unless you were in one of the riots, it's very difficult to understand the sense of hopelessness, anger and raw hatred that is felt in that situation and how fluid and dangerous it is.  I blame the adults in his life. Kyle's frontal lobe isn't even fully developed, he was incapable of understanding what he was doing, the risk he was creating, the impact of shooting a weapon and taking a life. The adults in Kyle's life failed him and should be held accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 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.

fair

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

Lol happy. Respectfully, this is getting embarrassing for you. That wasn’t my initial claim nor was it hilariously incorrect. It is nice that you’ve come around to “they shouldn’t have been there.” Nobody has a right to walk down a public street and not get assaulted, or lay in wait and execute somebody walking down a public street. You’re fascism is infinitely more malleable than mine, yet more true to the word.

Its not gaslighting because nobody believes you here, not for want of trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

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. 

Who died for damaging property again? The facts just keep falling by the wayside because they’re inconvenient. Which was kind of the point of pulling that terrible opinion piece apart. But go on. I certainly read it. Did you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Who died for damaging property again? The facts just keep falling by the wayside because they’re inconvenient. Which was kind of the point of pulling that terrible opinion piece apart. But go on. I certainly read it. Did you?

Property damage at scary BLM protest was the rationale for the call for armed patriots to "help"...the catalyst of the rittenhouse shootings. C'mon.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

Property damage at scary BLM protest was the rationale for the call for armed patriots to "help"...the catalyst of the rittenhouse shootings. C'mon.

Well riots are bad. But I’m pretty sure the catalyst for the shootings was an unequivocal assault that has left people grasping at straws trying to point to something, anything else. We had a whole trial and everything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Lol happy. Respectfully, this is getting embarrassing for you. That wasn’t my initial claim nor was it hilariously incorrect. It is nice that you’ve come around to “they shouldn’t have been there.” Nobody has a right to walk down a public street and not get assaulted, or lay in wait and execute somebody walking down a public street. You’re fascism is infinitely more malleable than mine, yet more true to the word.

lmao thanks for completely misrepresenting my words. Never once did I say "they should have been arrested for being there!" I said they shouldn't have been there. Which... no shit. They both were armed and looking for trouble in something between a protest and a riot. A value judgement of "hey maybe that is a choice with far more negative outcomes than positive" isn't fascism you maniac.

And you know it. You're just lying because you are incapable of criticizing police or policing in this country and you are incapable of judging criminal justice with an eye that is even remotely objective. 

8 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Its not gaslighting believes you here, not for want of trying.

 

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Except it’s not. Without charlatans like that, who won’t even speak to the facts, the case would never have been brought. It was obvious within days that this was self defense. Only political pressure allowed this trial and the farcical coverage to ensue.

lmao lying about your own words?

Without a political hubub, rittenhouse would have been quietly charged and likely convicted. What you think the judge would have asked for peace for him and been so sympathetic without the surrounding politics? Instead of "give him space", it would have been "pull up your pants, what kind of gang do you belong to?"

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I Am Not Gary Busey said:

I am curious, were you actually in or around any of the riots, or have you only read about them?

Only in SD. Where they were like the far majority of protests. Pretty mellow. Some in this chat seem to believe that all the marches were like Portland. False.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 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

 

 

48 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. 

It's not a question of whether you have a right to defend your person with lethal force, it's a question of the burden of proof. It shifts the burden if proof for the state if you kill someone in your home. The burden is not to prove that the accused killer in fact did it, and did so willingly, knowingly, with intent, etc. Instead, the state has to prove that the dead person was NOT trying to kill the killer, and/or that the killer didn't think the dead person was trying to kill him. Why? Because there's an assumption that you have an absolute right to be in your home, with your family, armed to use lethal force against anyone who enters that place. And one of the main pillars of that assumption is because the stakes are so high and you have no real choice - you cannot escape, and you are in your home, vulnerable, with your family, making it a life or death situation. 

When the law completely decontextualizes the moment of the death, taking away pretty much any liability from someone who picks a fight and puts themselves into a situation, knowingly walks into a clearly dangerous situation armed, and with the intent of using those arms to kill someone to defend property, not life but someone else's property, the law is functionally extending that doctrine to his person. It is saying that he had an absolute right to be in that public place, with a gun, at that moment, and that none of his other choices matter. The only choice that really mattered is the fact that he brought a gun, which itself raised the stakes to the level of life or death. 

Seems pretty clear that at least after the first person Rittenhouse shot to death with a gun, had someone else killed him, maybe one of the other people he shot, that person would also have had a reasonable self-defense argument. So I don't see how the message isn't clear - bring a gun to a riot or protest, and should you kill someone in an altercation you can shift all legal culpability to that person by saying you had no choice but to use deadly force with that gun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AztecSU said:

Only in SD. Where they were like the far majority of protests. Pretty mellow. Some in this chat seem to believe that all the marches were like Portland. False.

I was in LA as well. Started as a very peaceful BLM protest in Pan Pacific Park, made it's way to Melrose and the Fairfax District and blew up. Both LA and Portland were very violent and dangerous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

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.  

Wouldn’t getting rid off open carry laws essentially take care of that?

Florida is not an open carry state, but you can open carry when fishing or hunting.  There’s a jackass that carries an AR-15 and a fishing rod that walks around Florida looking for local police to challenge him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I Am Not Gary Busey said:

I was in LA as well. Started as a very peaceful BLM protest in Pan Pacific Park, made it's way to Melrose and the Fairfax District and blew up. Both LA and Portland were very violent and dangerous. 

9000 marches, 20 killed, 2 by Rittenhouse (an 11% increase in the total number of murders)...feels like crummy cities and places were just exposed for what they are during the protests. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tailingpermit said:

Wouldn’t getting rid off open carry laws essentially take care of that?

Florida is not an open carry state, but you can open carry when fishing or hunting.  There’s a jackass that carries an AR-15 and a fishing rod that walks around Florida looking for local police to challenge him.  

These are the people, on both sides, that are +++++ing up everything for the rest of us. I wish we could send them all to the moon.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, happycamper said:

lmao thanks for completely misrepresenting my words. Never once did I say "they should have been arrested for being there!" I said they shouldn't have been there. Which... no shit. They both were armed and looking for trouble in something between a protest and a riot. A value judgement of "hey maybe that is a choice with far more negative outcomes than positive" isn't fascism you maniac.

And you know it. You're just lying because you are incapable of criticizing police or policing in this country and you are incapable of judging criminal justice with an eye that is even remotely objective. 

 

lmao lying about your own words?

Without a political hubub, rittenhouse would have been quietly charged and likely convicted. What you think the judge would have asked for peace for him and been so sympathetic without the surrounding politics? Instead of "give him space", it would have been "pull up your pants, what kind of gang do you belong to?"

No happy. He should never have been charged. It was only because fools who still can’t seem to let it go ignored the facts and demanded action that it ever went to trial. The videos exonerated him. They were put together within days. I watched the incident happen on livestream and posted about it as it was happening. Would you like me to dig the thread up? Because we both know what’s in there. We’ll see how misrepresented your words have been.

I can also find plenty of examples of me calling bs on law enforcement. But you don’t want that either, because you know all you’re left with here is to try and bs everyone when you know I’ve been right about this. About all of this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

 

It's not a question of whether you have a right to defend your person with lethal force, it's a question of the burden of proof. It shifts the burden if proof for the state if you kill someone in your home. The burden is not to prove that the accused killer in fact did it, and did so willingly, knowingly, with intent, etc. Instead, the state has to prove that the dead person was NOT trying to kill the killer, and/or that the killer didn't think the dead person was trying to kill him. Why? Because there's an assumption that you have an absolute right to be in your home, with your family, armed to use lethal force against anyone who enters that place. And one of the main pillars of that assumption is because the stakes are so high and you have no real choice - you cannot escape, and you are in your home, vulnerable, with your family, making it a life or death situation. 

When the law completely decontextualizes the moment of the death, taking away pretty much any liability from someone who picks a fight and puts themselves into a situation, knowingly walks into a clearly dangerous situation armed, and with the intent of using those arms to kill someone to defend property, not life but someone else's property, the law is functionally extending that doctrine to his person. It is saying that he had an absolute right to be in that public place, with a gun, at that moment, and that none of his other choices matter. The only choice that really mattered is the fact that he brought a gun, which itself raised the stakes to the level of life or death. 

Seems pretty clear that at least after the first person Rittenhouse shot to death with a gun, had someone else killed him, maybe one of the other people he shot, that person would also have had a reasonable self-defense argument. So I don't see how the message isn't clear - bring a gun to a riot or protest, and should you kill someone in an altercation you can shift all legal culpability to that person by saying you had no choice but to use deadly force with that gun.

 

That is not at all clear.  If Kyle had shot somebody for looting, that would be clear.  If Kyle had confronted a looter with his gun on him, and the looter attacks Kyle, and Kyle shoots him, it gets more nuanced.  But that is not what happened.  This was a cut and dry case of protecting your person, not an extension direct or otherwise of castle doctrine.   Kyle was in fact defending his person at the moment he decided to use lethal force, not property.

What we can learn from this case we must learn from the actual facts, not assumptions or as you hate "counterfactuals".  We learned from this case is that you can use lethal force in defense of your person when all other options have been exhausted, such as fleeing, in a volatile and charged situation, even if you are a shit head who made a bad choice by being there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

9000 marches, 20 killed, 2 by Rittenhouse (an 11% increase in the total number of murders)...feels like crummy cities and places were just exposed for what they are during the protests. 

This is the problem with the new arrivals to the left, so classist. 

The issues predate the summer in Portland:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Portland_train_attack

Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer were picking fights and killing people way before the protests. It all came to a head during BLM. This happened elsewhere too, like Kenosha. Very dangerous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I Am Not Gary Busey said:

This is the problem with the new arrivals to the left, so classist. 

The issues predate the summer in Portland:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Portland_train_attack

Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer were picking fights and killing people way before the protests. It all came to a head during BLM. This happened elsewhere too, like Kenosha. Very dangerous. 

I dont doubt that instigators were in Portland. But from where I sit, Portland and Seattle have been kinda like this as long as I can remember. In the last 20 years Seattle has calmed some with the explosion in tech and cost of living likely changing the demo there...but when Portland's protest was far more intense than others I dont think anyone familiar was surprised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

No happy. He should never have been charged. It was only because fools who still can’t seem to let it go ignored the facts and demanded action that it ever went to trial. The videos exonerated him. They were put together within days. I watched the incident happen on livestream and posted about it as it was happening. Would you like me to dig the thread up? Because we both know what’s in there. We’ll see how misrepresented your words have been.

I can also find plenty of examples of me calling bs on law enforcement. But you don’t want that either, because you know all you’re left with here is to try and bs everyone when you know I’ve been right about this. About all of this.

 

Lawlor, you claimed that without anything political, he never would have been charged.

That is INSANE. WE have guys in prison with known alibis exonerating them. We have guys on trial with exonerating evidence. They're likely going to be convicted! We have DAs arguing to not release exonerated convicts because of fairness to all the other falsely convicted people something something. We have on the other side cases like the Aubrey murder where it was political pressure that forced the obvious pressing charges. There's no one system! There's no guarantee anywhere! Our system explicitly does not work the same for different people. The idea that "oh, this exact situation would never have charges except for political pressure" is either extraordinary ignorant of any criminal justice news of the last 200 years, or is deliberately crafted to cover for an argument that is otherwise untenable. tl;dr you don't have to stretch so far to defend an off the cuff statement.

Furthermore, the way you treat pressing charges is as if it is a conviction by itself. That's... not how it works. Otherwise we wouldn't have a trial, no?

Lawlor, I so thoroughly reject your worldview on this it has made me put you on ignore in the past. The thought that you could possibly think that "I know you've been right about all of this" is, frankly, insane. That's nevada convert level lack of self awareness. You don't sound "right" about any of this. You sound like a cop, who is both desperately trying to not let on that he's a cop and also desperately clinging to a thin blue line narrative. 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CV147 said:

Furthermore it is disturbing that what is clearly a killing in defense is politicized just because of political sentiment.

It is true that Rittenhouse probably shouldn't have been there and his presence likely instigated the situation.

That doesn't mean he should be defenseless and possibly die because of that. People have a right to be stupid. They still have the right to defend themselves.

Having given it some thought, maybe I shouldn't be so quick to criticize the jury for letting Rittenhouse off scot-free. Maybe they simply applied Wisconsin law. If so, that law sucks.

Compare that apparent Wisconsin law with Illinois law which, if I understand it correctly, Rittenhouse violated in two ways. One, he was a minor who possessed a firearm while unaccompanied by someone over 18. Two, he took that firearm over the state line to Wisconsin without authorization from Illinois authorities. Apparently it's NOT a violation of Wisconsin law for an unaccompanied minor to possess a long gun nor is it a violation of Wisconsin law that unaccompanied minor to brandish said firearm in public. Wisconsin law therefore appears to be as dangerously lenient as the Michigan open carry law which allowed those militiamen to brandish their long guns on the floor of the state legislature.

Such public policy is inevitably going to result in open combat between armed people with different political viewpoints. Not a question of if and I only hope there are no innocent bystanders among the casualties when that occurs.

  • Like 1
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...