Jump to content
tailingpermit

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

No I think it was very necessary.

The kid came looking for trouble and found it.   Now from what I have read here, as I haven’t followed the facts of the case, it appears the key point was he “tried” to flee and that was core to his defense.  So based on that point I would agree the verdict was just.   But I also think he deserved to go through the expense time and effort to prove it in court as he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.   
 

Oh and I agree with @TheSanDiegan Green is a ++++. 

You now think the guy is innocent but should be bankrupted anyway because...why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

You now think the guy is innocent but should be bankrupted anyway because...why?

Again my knowledge of the case is what I read here.  I haven’t spent more time reading about it as I thought I would get a better more balanced view reading this thread.   
 

But basically if he had a legitimate claim to self defense as @halfmanhalfbronco has said then by the law fine.  

But I also agree with @smltwnrckr that it sets a dangerous precedent that any idiot can walk armed into a volatile situation and create the grounds for self-defense.   It’s critical that if you choose to do what Rittenhouse did you best be prepared to at a minimum spend a couple years and a couple hundred thousand proving you in fact had a legitimate self defense claim.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I'm not talking about his immediate options. When you walk into a politically volatile and violent scenario, like an armed protest or a riot, and you do so armed with the intent or willingness to use those arms against your presumed political enemies, or even people in this situation, there is an extremely good chance that fleeing is not going to be a viable option especially once you carry out an act of deadly violence against on of your foes.

Walking into politically volatile and violent scenarios is as american as apple pie.  Not a pie fan.  You are making a few bad faith assumptions it seems to me.  You are assuming based on this case, at least it seems that the purpose of bringing a weapon was to defend property and not person if accosted while protecting property with fire extinguishers and what not.  That is an assumption that was proven, well, not likely in court, and if proven likely would have changed the entire court proceedings and sparring.  His person was there to protect property and his weapon to protect his person.  Stupid?  Yep.  

 

1 hour ago, smltwnrckr said:

the law only takes into considerations his options, decisions and threats in the moment and does not allow for the dipshit decisions he made that lead to multiple people getting killed who would not have been killed had and his friends not walked in there with guns

This is where you start to lose me, just a little, as a fellow libertarian-ish kinda person.  It seems you are advocating for additional law, which I am opening to hearing.  However I am not seeing a path forward here, which might be and likely is your point. I think?  In this particular riot it was reasonable to presume if you were demonstrating outside the party rioting you could be met with violent force.  

It seems you feel the law is broken, well, how would you change said law?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Again my knowledge of the case is what I read here.  I haven’t spent more time reading about it as I thought I would get a better more balanced view reading this thread.   
 

But basically if he had a legitimate claim to self defense as @halfmanhalfbronco has said then by the law fine.  

But I also agree with @smltwnrckr that it sets a dangerous precedent that any idiot can walk armed into a volatile situation and create the grounds for self-defense.   It’s critical that if you choose to do what Rittenhouse did you best be prepared to at a minimum spend a couple years and a couple hundred thousand proving you in fact had a legitimate self defense claim.   

Although it's clear you are going to get push back on this  I basically agree with you which is why I said in earlier posts that KR should not be able to make money from this (not that anyone can stop that )... even though the court found him not guilty of the crime he was accused ... because of his actions he shouldn't profit from it. 

 

"It ain't right !  It just ain't right, Captain! "

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

Although it's clear you are going to get push back on this  I basically agree with you which is why I said in earlier posts that KR should not be able to make money from this (not that anyone can stop that )... even though the court found him not guilty of the crime he was accused ... because of his actions he shouldn't profit from it. 

 

"It ain't right !  It just ain't right, Captain! "

Push back is why you post here.   If you want an echo chamber plenty of other places to post.   That being said my milk toast, I agree with everyone comment, isn’t likely to generate the normal amount of pushback I get.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Walking into politically volatile and violent scenarios is as american as apple pie.  Not a pie fan.  You are making a few bad faith assumptions it seems to me.  You are assuming based on this case, at least it seems that the purpose of bringing a weapon was to defend property and not person if accosted while protecting property with fire extinguishers and what not.  That is an assumption that was proven, well, not likely in court, and if proven likely would have changed the entire court proceedings and sparring.  His person was there to protect property and his weapon to protect his person.  Stupid?  Yep.  

 

This is where you start to lose me, just a little, as a fellow libertarian-ish kinda person.  It seems you are advocating for additional law, which I am opening to hearing.  However I am not seeing a path forward here, which might be and likely is your point. I think?  In this particular riot it was reasonable to presume if you were demonstrating outside the party rioting you could be met with violent force.  

It seems you feel the law is broken, well, how would you change said law?  

I reserve the right to respond to this at some point this week. But I'm drunk, and about to get laid. So, you'll just have to wait. 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Who is stretching to defend an off the cuff statement now? I stand by mine. The Rittenhouse trial was ridiculous and didn’t need any superb lawyering to defend against. It was obvious from the beginning. Although your next statement is really going to undercut all that grasping at straws you just did.

Was it? Because it seems to me like "person walking around with a rifle then shoots  3 people" is kinda the exact situation that trials were made for. 

6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Yes, I sound like a cop and a member of gen z communist twitter in the same thread AND a fascist elsewhere.

Well, yeah.

You never, not ever, not once criticize the police.

You misuse "gaslight" as "dare to disagree with me"

You support state violence vs citizen violence, even when citizen violence is a direct response to prior state violence

It isn't my fault you're doing these

6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Meanwhile you’ve been scraping for any ground to stand on up to and including pointing to Michael Reinoehl, a man who hid before ambushing a person and it’s all on camera, to try to save face.

Save face???/ If there was any other better example I'd use it. Thank to christ that there are only 2 "well there was a political demonstration and some dude came in armed looking for trouble and found trouble and was looking to be/was assaulted and ended up killing someone" only happened twice in 2020. I'd far rather have a relatively shitty comparison than "well of the 35 available examples of this, here's the 3 most comparative..." I mean there's more "dude was in a dangerous situation and killed people, ostensibly for self defense" but the lack of political angle obviates the comparison, no?

6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

 

You put me on ignore because you get way out over your skis and I can make you tumble.

No, I do so because you get stupid repetitive and I just don't need to see that 28 times in a row. 

6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

And when you do tumble, I don’t let you scream “I wasn’t falling, you (insert whatever insult)!” without saying “you were right, my bad.” You should try it. Because my worldview will continue to be more real than yours.

Lmao. Let's recap.

My worldview is there is no world where a kid running into a violent situation, with a rifle, who ends up shooting 3 people, would be considered crazy to be charged for any crime. 

Meanwhile in your worldview, a kid who went to a political protest, to further his political beliefs, who shot 3 political opponents, wouldn't have been charged if it weren't for politics.

Lawlor wut????? If it weren't for politics, there would have been no protest nor any rittenhouse counter protest.

That, in fact, ignores the obvious reality that any action by the state is inherently political. What is self defense? Is itself inherently a political question. Who do we charge? is a political question. Do we charge so that we win ~98% of cases, or do we charge so that we win ~70% but get far more likely perpetrators? Is a political question. 

The idea that you can state "well someone wouldn't or would have been charged, except for POLITICS" is deliberately ignoring the context of the fact that politics is responsible for the ability to charge anyone, ever, in the first place. It is as essential to the question as water is to oceanography. To ignore it is to ignore the essential medium that any case rests in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I reserve the right to respond to this at some point this week. But I'm drunk, and about to get laid. So, you'll just have to wait. 

its been 10 minutes. whats your response

  • Like 1
  • Haha 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I reserve the right to respond to this at some point this week. But I'm drunk, and about to get laid. So, you'll just have to wait. 

Dude I love you man, like totally.  Smash 2bits.  I look forward to your eventual response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

I reserve the right to respond to this at some point this week. But I'm drunk, and about to get laid. So, you'll just have to wait. 

 

9 hours ago, happycamper said:

its been 10 minutes. whats your response

This is why I can’t leave this damn board. :rotflmfao:

  • Like 2
  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2021 at 4:55 PM, Someone Else said:

Although it's clear you are going to get push back on this  I basically agree with you which is why I said in earlier posts that KR should not be able to make money from this (not that anyone can stop that )... even though the court found him not guilty of the crime he was accused ... because of his actions he shouldn't profit from it. 

I'm pretty sure it's illegal in any state to profit from a crime you've committed. The difference with Rittenhouse was he was not convicted. That said, however, I couldn't disagree with lawlor more about "bankrupting" the kid. Just because he didn't commit a crime doesn't mean he didn't do something so societally abhorrent that he shouldn't be held civilly culpable for the death of two people and the serious injury of a third. Let him co-write a book with Matt Gaetz and if more than a few hundred copies are sold have the kid's portion of the proceeds go to the three plaintiffs as his first payment toward the judgment against him. (Gaetz can take his proceeds and shove them up his ass.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FresnoFacts said:

 

 

As maybe the most ardent 2A supporter on here, +++++ this to absolute hell.

One of the facebook groups I follow and have twice created content for, "Active self protection" is a great follow.  One of the things always preached is to exhaust every possible alternative before pulling the trigger, because once you pull the trigger, your life turns to hell.  Something like 75% plus of people who pull the trigger deal with PTSD. Let alone the legal shit that drains you mentally and financially.

+++++ Gaetz.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

As maybe the most ardent 2A supporter on here, +++++ this to absolute hell.

One of the facebook groups I follow and have twice created content for, "Active self protection" is a great follow.  One of the things always preached is to exhaust every possible alternative before pulling the trigger, because once you pull the trigger, your life turns to hell.  Something like 75% plus of people who pull the trigger deal with PTSD. Let alone the legal shit that drains you mentally and financially.

+++++ Gaetz.  

If you have a ccw  and regularly  carry, get the insurance.

Even if you had no other option  than to shoot, you still might get arrested and it's highly likely you're going to face a civil lawsuit.  

As you mentioned,  exhaust  the other alternatives first. 

I don't think I'd support a nat'l SYG law, but I would support some form of a nat'l castle doctrine  law that protects you from both prosecution  and civil lawsuits.  

IMO. if you shoot a home intruder, you should be immune from prosecution  and civil lawsuits.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

If you have a ccw  and regularly  carry, get the insurance.

Even if you had no other option  than to shoot, you still might get arrested and it's highly likely you're going to face a civil lawsuit.  

As you mentioned,  exhaust  the other alternatives first. 

I don't think I'd support a nat'l SYG law, but I would support some form of a nat'l castle doctrine  law that protects you from both prosecution  and civil lawsuits.  

IMO. if you shoot a home intruder, you should be immune from prosecution  and civil lawsuits.  

 

 

Agreed.  

The way Gaetz framed it is +++++ing sick.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

MY brother and I had a security body guard service in the 1980s besides our insurance our employee's were required to have their own. WE sent all of the to reserve officer training at the Los Angeles Sheriff academy. Had each of them on as a reserve at some la county city, They then had training and and also them powers of arrest. Still we had bulls*t suites attempted, none went to court. Don't own a gun if you do not know how to use it, do not own one if you do not know the law, do not own one if you are not insured .Do not loan or let someone use your weapon unless you are on the range with him or her.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Agreed.  

The way Gaetz framed it is +++++ing sick.  

He's just trying to score points.  

I would be in favor of eliminating  duty to retreat laws. 

 In a particular situation,  you may not think retreating is a viable option, but the anti-gun, DA might not agree.  As we saw in the Rittenhouse trial,  a DA will do darn near anything  to convict you, even if you were clearly defending yourself. 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Agreed.  

The way Gaetz framed it is +++++ing sick.  

I know Gaetz is just grandstanding, but a stand your ground law might have allowed Arbery’s muderers to go free. 

Link to post
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...