# 17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest



## Eric

Showing once again that anyone can get access to an assault weapon, a deranged Blue Lives Matter activist shoots into a crowd of protesters, killing two, has been charged.

From The Daily Beast


> Kyle Rittenhouse, a rifle-toting teenage Blue Lives Matter fan suspected of fatally shooting at least two people and injuring another during protests in Kenosha over the shooting of Jacob Blake, has been charged with murder.
> 
> Rittenhouse, 17, was arrested in Illinois and faces charges of first-degree intentional homicide, according to Lake County, Illinois Clerk of Courts public records.
> 
> So far, he is labeled a “fugitive from justice” in the complaint, which states that the teenager “fled the state of Wisconsin with intent to avoid prosecution for that offense.” He’s been assigned a public defender and was scheduled to appear at an extradition hearing on Aug. 28, according to court records.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> Showing once again that anyone can get access to an assault weapon, a deranged Blue Lives Matter activist shoots into a crowd of protesters, killing two, has been charged.
> 
> From The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> View attachment 181



As Jay said, this guy can be Trump's next pardon.


----------



## BigMcGuire

Jeez. Never understood how weapons like that can be obtained... I understand personal defense weapons but an assault rifle like that should be reserved for LEO, special ops military, etc.

What little I've seen of these protests - and all the people armed - I'm surprised we don't see more actions like this.

In my own place of residence, last week, there was a tiny Trump2020 gathering and a even smaller BLM gathering - and yet there was blood and fights. Scary to see this so close to home (a few miles from my house).

I feel threatened just driving by these events in my car. No one with a weapon should be allowed at these events.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> As Jay said, this guy can be Trump's next pardon.



Would not surprise me on bit.


----------



## SuperMatt

Trump's entire campaign from the beginning is white grievance against anybody not white getting "stuff." He demonizes Mexicans, Muslims, women of color, women in general, etc. He gives support to white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Of course his followers think they can go out and use violence against the groups their leader marginalizes; they think he'll pardon them or just not prosecute at all. I hope he loses in such a landslide that everybody ever associated with him will be afraid to show their faces anywhere. Right now, it's acceptable to be a racist but unacceptable to CALL somebody a racist. That is why this forum was created in the first place. So we can call a spade a spade without getting cancel-cultured by Weaselboy.


----------



## DT

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298769012130803713/


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298704445585448961/


> Persons who were out after the curfew became engaged in some type of disturbance, and persons were shot. Everybody involved was out after the curfew. I’m not going to make a great deal of that, but the point is the curfew is in place to protect. Had persons not been out involved in violation of that, perhaps the situation that unfolded would not have happened. So, last night, a 17-year-old individual from Antioch, Illinois, was involved in the use of firearms to resolve whatever conflict was in place. The result of it is two people... are dead.




I wonder who's back the police chief's got?  The fault of the guy who shot the protestors?  Nah.  It's the protestors fault for being out there after curfew.  Otherwise they wouldn't have been out there for a guy from another state to shoot them.

Wait.  Wouldn't that mean the shooter was out after curfew as well?  But still...?

Yup, I can't imagine those in Kenosha would ever have an issue with their own law enforcement

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298847525919690753/


----------



## BigMcGuire

SuperMatt said:


> Trump's entire campaign from the beginning is white grievance against anybody not white getting "stuff." He demonizes Mexicans, Muslims, women of color, women in general, etc. He gives support to white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Of course his followers think they can go out and use violence against the groups their leader marginalizes; they think he'll pardon them or just not prosecute at all. I hope he loses in such a landslide that everybody ever associated with him will be afraid to show their faces anywhere. Right now, it's acceptable to be a racist but unacceptable to CALL somebody a racist. That is why this forum was created in the first place. So we can call a spade a spade without getting cancel-cultured by Weaselboy.




OK because this is PRSI related and because I'm a conservative, I ask that you allow me to play the devil's advocate here. Being that a lot of you consider Trump to be the devil, I would like to play the role of devil's advocate. I do this mostly to see your response not because I'm defending anyone or anything (personally). I don't intend to defend anyone - only spur discussion. Allow me to play this advocate for the sake of discussion:

Devil's Advocate Begin
------------------------------------------

Trump focuses on the problems that past administrations have allowed (by either ignorance or intent) to occur - such as the China / America trade deficit, South America's immigration being badly handled by previous administrations, almost ignored. I don't know if I'd call that as whites not getting stuff but more - whites having to solve the world's problems. Yes, we have a responsibility to do good when it is in our power to do so... but there's a fine line between handing out $ and helping people help themselves.

After seeing the police not allowed to protect businesses and livelihoods, I do see a call to action to do what the police won't do - standing up to the violent protesters that destroy property and livelihoods (mostly of minorities working these stores). The police need to be allowed to do their jobs - the last thing we need are vigilante idiots with guns doing what they think should be done.

------------------------------------------
Devil's Advocate End


I don't think it is acceptable to be a racist and I'm not seeing being racist as being acceptable (I do live in California). I do see a lot of people (not right wing) calling Trump a racist, and calling all Trump supporters racist as a general racism call. I think it's wrong to call all Trump supporters racist - while I do not discount that racism exists, I do think the calls of racism are a bit excessive - especially lumping large groups of people into a "racist" category --- I see this very similar to lumping all <insert race> here and calling it a generalized term. Call a spade a spade, but generalizing a group of people is usually wrong. I see way too much of this going on. Lumping a ton of people as racist (guilty until proven innocent) has got to stop.



It's going to be interesting to see how November turns out. Even here in California, the number of Trump 2020 gatherings, flags - are far more than it ever was in 2016. Which is surprising to me ... being in a blue state so close to Los Angeles.


On another note, I've had many ring wingers claim that Weaselboy was singling them out cuz he was anti-trump (they said). Quite a few of them are now forever suspended. This was back when I used to participate in PRSI (about a year ago) - just an observation.


----------



## BigMcGuire

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298704445585448961/
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298847525919690753/




Wow... that little tidbit (I didn't listen to the whole speech) sounds horrific. I will try to make time to listen to the whole speech but... not really sure how one could justify that. Maybe if he's talking about murders or something, but damn. lol. Just that little tidbit sounds horrible!









						Kenosha County sheriff reacts: Five Milwaukee suspects charged in Pleasant Prairie outlet mall theft that lead to chase, crash
					

Sheriff David Beth reacted to news that five suspects from Milwaukee were charged after a retail theft that lead to a chase and crash in Pleasant Prairie.




					rumble.com
				



I can't get the full video to load?


Edit: DAMN!!!! If that's what he's talking about .... that's horrific.




I think this summarizes it well:


----------



## JayMysteri0

BigMcGuire said:


> Wow... that little tidbit (I didn't listen to the whole speech) sounds horrific. I will try to make time to listen to the whole speech but... not really sure how one could justify that. Maybe if he's talking about murders or something, but damn. lol. Just that little tidbit sounds horrible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kenosha County sheriff reacts: Five Milwaukee suspects charged in Pleasant Prairie outlet mall theft that lead to chase, crash
> 
> 
> Sheriff David Beth reacted to news that five suspects from Milwaukee were charged after a retail theft that lead to a chase and crash in Pleasant Prairie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rumble.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get the full video to load?
> 
> 
> Edit: DAMN!!!! If that's what he's talking about .... that's horrific.
> View attachment 200
> 
> I think this summarizes it well:
> View attachment 201



Bear in mind, Kenosha has had more than it's share of issues that have led to this.  This wasn't some "holy cow, why did this isolated incident happen?"



> The police shooting of Jacob Blake, explained
> 
> 
> Two people were fatally shot Tuesday, as the city of Kenosha, Wisconsin, experienced a third night of unrest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com





> *Police violence is not uncommon in Wisconsin*
> 
> The protests continued those that began after Floyd’s death and underscored the fact that police shootings of unarmed Black civilians are not new occurrences in Wisconsin, a state in which Black people make up just 6.7 percent of the population. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Milwaukee region has been home to a number of high-profile police shootings — particularly of Black and Latinx men — in the past two decades in which officers were not charged. One of the victims, 22-year-old Adam Trammell, died in 2017 after officers from the West Milwaukee Police Department broke down the door of his apartment and repeatedly tased him as he showered.
> 
> The 2019 police shooting of Ty’Rese West in Racine County, just north of Kenosha County, also resulted in no charges against the police. A police sergeant stopped West one evening for not having the proper lights on his bicycle. A struggle ensued after the sergeant thought West had a gun. The incident ended when the sergeant fatally shot West. The death sparked protests across Racine County, and West’s family has not stopped issuing calls for justice.




Who in the history of common sense & awareness of human beings thought this was EVER a good idea at anytime EVER?



> Years of grassroots organizing after the police shooting of 21-year-old Kenosha County resident Michael Bell in 2004 led to the passing of a Milwaukee law in 2014 that prevents police officers from conducting their own investigations of officer-involved shootings. As in Blake’s case, an outside law enforcement body must step in to lead the investigation.




There's only ONE reason you let the suspected investigate themselves, especially when it involves shootings, where the perpetrator is already highly unlikely to face responsibility for their actions.  That's like decided a thumb on the scale of justice wasn't enough & you need all four limbs on the scale as well to be sure.  Then act surprised when people go "WTF?!"  ...And it only took a decade to bring about that change.  I wonder how many lives were lost in that time?



> But in the wake of George Floyd’s death, criminal justice reform advocates have argued that law doesn’t go far enough, and protesters have demanded state legislators make changes to the criminal justice system. Some local officials across the state responded to these demands by terminating school district contracts with police officers. In June, Evers announced a legislative package that included banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants, adding the requirement that officers take deescalation training, and putting $1 million in grants toward community-based anti-violence programs, according to Wisconsin Public Radio.
> 
> However, lawmakers likely won’t vote on any of the proposals until next year. And the package of bills from the state’s Democratic governor has received little support from the Republican lawmakers who control the state’s legislature. On Monday, Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos called the governor’s package “liberal policies that will only deepen the divisions in our state.”
> 
> Evers has used Blake’s shooting to call for a renewed focus on race and policing in his state, saying in a statement Sunday, “We stand against excessive use of force and immediate escalation when engaging with Black Wisconsinites. ... In the coming days, we will demand just that of elected officials in our state who have failed to recognize the racism in our state and our country for far too long.”




We also need our ever present reminder that for some ( usually those who do the shooting ) aren't comfortable with any changes to the way things are going now...



> But the governor’s statement — and proposed initiatives — have garnered pushback. Pete Deates, president of the union representing Kenosha police officers, denounced the governor’s statement, calling it “wholly irresponsible and not reflective of the hardworking members of the law enforcement community.” Deates asked that people “withhold judgment” about the shooting and let the investigation “play out fairly and impartially.”
> 
> Protesters in Kenosha and across the country are still demanding systemic change. Michael Bell Sr., the father of shooting victim Michael Bell, told the New York Times following the shooting of Blake, “The system is broken. The system here is broken.”


----------



## JayMysteri0

And the television wrap up version of the same thing I've been saying for years...
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298953658856435712/

MAYBE have a weapon & be Black, deescalation is suddenly NOT an option.

Actually have a gun *&* shoot multiple people *&* kill, and be White. Go home, get a good night's rest, or we can go grab some BK!   Which ever works for you.

Here's the alternate reality version of our current world...


----------



## SuperMatt

Lock away shoplifters for the rest of their lives in a warehouse? Lock people up for having too many kids? I wonder why Kenosha is ok with white kids murdering protesters and cops shooting black people in the back.


----------



## jkcerda

if the pedo that got the head shot or the armed felon who got his arm shot had killed the kid instead would it make the news?
arsonist are fucking shit up all over the place and you guys think they should simply stand by and let it all burn or else they are racist? would YOU let YOUR home & business burn down to the ground just because some POS assholes want to do it in the name of "justice"?


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> if the pedo that got the head shot or the armed felon who got his arm shot had killed the kid instead would it make the news?
> arsonist are fucking shit up all over the place and you guys think they should simply stand by and let it all burn or else they are racist? would YOU let YOUR home & business burn down to the ground just because some POS assholes want to do it in the name of "justice"?



If it was the person who's property shot the arsonist, you wouldn't hear much.  THIS was NOT that case.  Trying to evoke the weakest defense for such an individual as this wannabe though says a lot.

If it's a person who travels to another state with militia buddies transporting a weapon to protect property they have no personal investment in, just to shoot someone.  Not even sure if they are an arsonist, just a protestor of a cause they hate...  That's what known as looking for a justification.  It's bullshit.

So no, there's no amount of creative fabrication of events that will twist even the slightest consideration for this individual.

As far as the arsonists or whoever, it's for that city's police to handle.  Mind you, THAT police is the very reason the unrest is occurring.  A city & police who've embarked on behavior with a particular part of their citizenry for more than a decade.  So perhaps the problems go a little further back then the arsonists, and that needs to be looked at.  When that city of course isn't taking calls to deputize out of town wannabe armed militia types to help out, who then go on & kill.  Once again reinforcing why the protests and the unrest are happening in the first place.

You really don't see how this feeds itself?   

No matter how much yourself & others try to convince yourselves, you don't get one without the other.  No one likes the destruction or the protests, but something had to happen for them to begin with in the first place.  Perhaps looking at that as well, instead selectively deciding where to blame, would be an awesome step to take.


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> If it was the person who's property shot the arsonist, you wouldn't hear much.  THIS was NOT that case.  Trying to evoke the weakest defense for such an individual as this wannabe though says a lot.
> 
> If it's a person who travels to another state with militia buddies transporting a weapon to protect property they have no personal investment in, just to shoot someone.  Not even sure if they are an arsonist, just a protestor of a cause they hate...  That's what known as looking for a justification.  It's bullshit.
> 
> So no, there's no amount of creative fabrication of events that will twist even the slightest consideration for this individual.
> 
> As far as the arsonists or whoever, it's for that city's police to handle.  Mind you, THAT police is the very reason the unrest is occurring.  A city & police who've embarked on behavior with a particular part of their citizenry for more than a decade.  So perhaps the problems go a little further back then the arsonists, and that needs to be looked at.  When that city of course isn't taking calls to deputize out of town wannabe armed militia types to help out, who then go on & kill.  Once again reinforcing why the protests and the unrest are happening in the first place.
> 
> You really don't see how this feeds itself?
> 
> No matter how much yourself & others try to convince yourselves, you don't get one without the other.  No one likes the destruction or the protests, but something had to happen for them to begin with in the first place.  Perhaps looking at that as well, instead selectively deciding where to blame, would be an awesome step to take.



police are just watching it all burn, hence the reason regular citizens are stepping up, we are ALL going to pay for this cluster fuck as those businesses that burn leave people unemployed, who ends up with the tab for that? those still with jobs.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> police are just watching it all burn, hence the reason regular citizens are stepping up, we are ALL going to pay for this cluster fuck as those businesses that burn leave people unemployed, who ends up with the tab for that? those still with jobs.




You are defending this murdering kid and calling him a "regular citizen" who is "stepping up"?


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> police are just watching it all burn, hence the reason regular citizens are stepping up, we are ALL going to pay for this cluster fuck as those businesses that burn leave people unemployed, who ends up with the tab for that? those still with jobs.



So the question is, why are the police watching it burn?  After all, once again it's because of their actions we have the unrest.  Still not willing to give the police their share of the burden here?  Instead wash your hands of outside individuals who come into their city, and basically escalate things further.  That's who you want to imagine is 'stepping up' in all of this.

Interesting approach.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> You are defending this murdering kid and calling him a "regular citizen" who is "stepping up"?



video shows self defense, until that changes.................................


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> So the question is, why are the police watching it burn?  After all, once again it's because of their actions we have the unrest.  Still not willing to give the police their share of the burden here?  Instead wash your hands of outside individuals who come into their city, and basically escalate things further.  That's who you want to imagine is 'stepping up' in all of this.
> 
> Interesting approach.



cops have no duty to protect, in places like portland the governor told them to stand down, even limited them to what they could use so they have their hands tied behind their back.  go arrest arsonist and get accused of even more police brutality because OMG you dared stop an arsonist.

SOME cops are indeed to blame, just like ALL the POS Mfing politicians who passed a gazillion laws the cops enforce in the first place, you need POLITICIANS to CHANGE the laws and rules of engagement for the cops.


----------



## BigMcGuire

Just from the pictures I've seen - whacking someone repeatedly in the head repeatedly with a skateboard who has an AR 15 ..... Is not the smartest thing one can do.

I still think bringing a loaded gun to a protest is a hell no... but these protests are getting so damn violent, I can see why people are. Just near my home town (a few miles from my house) a tiny little protest (under a few hundred) resulted in blood.

I am refraining from making comments that put me on one side or another because I have not taken the time necessary to understand all the facts.

I agree that if the police were allowed to do their jobs... people wouldn't feel the need ... - they shouldn't... feel the need to bring weapons. They should not.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> video shows self defense, until that changes.................................




Video shows nothing of the sort. How interesting it must be to see the world through the eyes of a racist.


----------



## BigMcGuire

SuperMatt said:


> Video shows nothing of the sort. How interesting it must be to see the world through the eyes of a racist.




Awww come on, why resort to calling people racist.

@jkcerda pointed out a video showing the suspect being pummeled in the head with a skateboard. He popped out the pictures for all to see in a different thread.

I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## BigMcGuire

TalkedAbout Forums
					

TalkedAbout has been around for many years and we pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds




					politicalgroove.com
				




Here we go. Wow, I found it.


----------



## Renzatic

BigMcGuire said:


> Just from the pictures I've seen - whacking someone repeatedly in the head repeatedly with a skateboard who has an AR 15 ..... Is not the smartest thing one can do.




If that were all there was to this, it would be a clear cut case of self defense.

The whole story paints a much more vague picture. Allegedly and supposedly, someone had fired a gun into a crowd, which caused some people to react, homing in on anyone with a weapon in hand. At some point in one of the videos, you can hear someone say something like "he's the shooter", or "he's not the shooter" before skateboard kid starts smacking him with his board.

Then you have the fact that the kid blind fired into a retreating crowd there towards the end, so...

The way I see it, you have a person who wanted to find an excuse to shoot someone, vs. a group of people who wanted to provide him one. The whole thing is a clusterfuck of fear, misinterpretations, spilled blood, and bullshit.


----------



## BigMcGuire

Renzatic said:


> If that were all there was to this, it would be a clear cut case of self defense.
> 
> The whole story paints a much more vague picture. Allegedly and supposedly, someone had fired a gun into a crowd, which caused some people to react, homing in on anyone with a weapon in hand. At some point in one of the videos, you can hear someone say something like "he's the shooter", or "he's not the shooter" before skateboard kid starts smacking him with his board.
> 
> Then you have the fact that the kid blind fired into a retreating crowd there towards the end, so...
> 
> The way I see it, you have a person who wanted to find an excuse to shoot someone, vs. a group of people who wanted to provide him one. The whole thing is a clusterfuck of fear, misinterpretations, spilled blood, and bullshit.




The police should arrest anyone who comes to these protests with a weapon, uses anything as a weapon, or does any harm to anyone. Allowing people to bring loaded guns to a protest like this is just asking for troubles. I wish the police would be allowed to do their job - but the problem is, the protests are against ... the police so governors feel, to keep the peace, they'll just let the protesters be and not "instigate" violence. Well... shit. Now idiots with guns are going to start joining looking for trouble. Good grief. What a mess. This is not going to end up well.


----------



## SuperMatt

BigMcGuire said:


> The police should arrest anyone who comes to these protests with a weapon, uses anything as a weapon, or does any harm to anyone. Allowing people to bring loaded guns to a protest like this is just asking for troubles. I wish the police would be allowed to do their job - but the problem is, the protests are against ... the police so governors feel, to keep the peace, they'll just let the protesters be and not "instigate" violence. Well... shit. Now idiots with guns are going to start joining looking for trouble. Good grief. What a mess. This is not going to end up well.




The reason the cops are loathe to attack armed protesters is because the mob is more well-armed than the cops. These mobs want to organize on Facebook and show up armed? Call them an illegal revolution against the United States of America and warn them an airstrike is incoming.

We have the right to PEACEABLY assemble. Showing up in force with assault weapons and body armor doesn't fit that definition.


----------



## BigMcGuire

SuperMatt said:


> The reason the cops are loathe to attack armed protesters is because the mob is more well-armed than the cops. These mobs want to organize on Facebook and show up armed? Call them an illegal revolution against the United States of America and warn them an airstrike is incoming.
> 
> We have the right to PEACEABLY assemble. Showing up in force with assault weapons and body armor doesn't fit that definition.




That's the problem right? Not all of these peaceful assemblies are ... peaceful. Even the one near my house last week (no one had guns), a fight started and bloodied people were carted away in ambulances. I think expecting the police to show up without arms is asking for trouble.

These assemblies are anything but peaceful (some of them). If they were then, yes, we could have that. I see that as a "perfect world" scenario - nowhere near reality.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> Right now, it's acceptable to be a racist but unacceptable to CALL somebody a racist. That is why this forum was created in the first place. So we can call a spade a spade without getting cancel-cultured by Weaselboy.



Lol, that's exactly what Seddy's doing right now on MR.


----------



## SuperMatt

BigMcGuire said:


> TalkedAbout Forums
> 
> 
> TalkedAbout has been around for many years and we pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> politicalgroove.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go. Wow, I found it.




Yeah I saw it. He's not even legally allowed to have his weapon. His life wasn't in danger. There were other fights in that mob, and nobody else opened fire. He will not prevail with a self-defense argument in court.


----------



## BigMcGuire

SuperMatt said:


> Yeah I saw it. He's not even legally allowed to have his weapon. His life wasn't in danger. There were other fights in that mob, and nobody else opened fire. He will not prevail with a self-defense argument in court.




Yeah don't get me wrong, bringing a loaded gun to a protest. Your ass should be thrown in jail for a long time. Weapons do not belong at protests. Amen.


----------



## Renzatic

BigMcGuire said:


> The police should arrest anyone who comes to these protests with a weapon, uses anything as a weapon, or does any harm to anyone. Allowing people to bring loaded guns to a protest like this is just asking for troubles.




I dunno about arresting them outright, but they should be turned away. A bunch of rando dudes in tacticooled up defense gear, hopped up on righteous indignation and internet tough talk, are only going to serve to irritate any volatile situation.



> This is not going to end up well.




I do have this feeling that things are going to get a lot stupider before they get better, yeah.


----------



## lizkat

PearsonX said:


> Lol, that's exactly what Seddy's doing right now on MR.




I got two things on my reminder app for a little farther into the campaign season say like a week or so after Labor Day.    Sign up for a Bloomberg News promo rate yet again, since by then I'll qualify for it...   and stick more of my toes back into  PRSI, figuring maybe I can manage to keep my act together over there for two months without getting banned.   (But on that second point, my doubt runs high every time I just log in and have a look around there.  So maybe y'all better get used to me and my off-topic rambles over here.)


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> cops have no duty to protect, in places like portland the governor told them to stand down, even limited them to what they could use so they have their hands tied behind their back.  go arrest arsonist and get accused of even more police brutality because OMG you dared stop an arsonist.
> 
> SOME cops are indeed to blame, just like ALL the POS Mfing politicians who passed a gazillion laws the cops enforce in the first place, you need POLITICIANS to CHANGE the laws and rules of engagement for the cops.



There is never a shortage of people to blame.  The problem is in the search of yet someone else to blame, nothing ever truly gets done.

If that arsonist is white you can rest assured they will be arrested safely, the problem is they aren't well...  Once again no is endorsing the arsonists, but if you don't believe it's the job of the police to go get the arsonists who are breaking the law, what's their job again.  That tired bit of using the factoid "that the police don't protect", doesn't work if they aren't doing the job of arresting those who break laws like arson.  Leaving it to endorse out of town militia, as a walk around for declaring them vigilantes which they really are is just weak ass sauce.

As long as there are SOME cops to blame, just like others want to blame ALL acts of rioting, looting, & vandalism on BLM, all cops have to unfortunately bear that blame.  There's no selective application of blame.  Unless you want to admit the position you're discussion is based on dishonesty.  And that everyone but the people you prefer are to blame only.


----------



## JayMysteri0

BigMcGuire said:


> Just from the pictures I've seen - whacking someone repeatedly in the head repeatedly with a skateboard who has an AR 15 ..... Is not the smartest thing one can do.
> 
> I still think bringing a loaded gun to a protest is a hell no... but these protests are getting so damn violent, I can see why people are. Just near my home town (a few miles from my house) a tiny little protest (under a few hundred) resulted in blood.
> 
> I am refraining from making comments that put me on one side or another because I have not taken the time necessary to understand all the facts.
> 
> I agree that if the police were allowed to do their jobs... people wouldn't feel the need ... - they shouldn't... feel the need to bring weapons. They should not.



Remember though, this isn't the first time.  We had this also happen...


> Man shoots protester over bid to tear down statue in New Mexico
> 
> 
> Officers in Albuquerque said on Tuesday they arrested Steven Baca, 31, left and right, and charged him with shooting and critically wounding Scott Williams on Monday night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk




It happens because one side tends to be allowed to bring weapons withOUT rising the ire of the police, leaving skateboards as a means of protection for others being shot at.


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> There is never a shortage of people to blame.  The problem is in the search of yet someone else to blame, nothing ever truly gets done.
> 
> If that arsonist is white you can rest assured they will be arrested safely, the problem is they aren't well...  Once again no is endorsing the arsonists, but if you don't believe it's the job of the police to go get the arsonists who are breaking the law, what's their job again.  That tired bit of using the factoid "that the police don't protect", doesn't work if they aren't doing the job of arresting those who break laws like arson.  Leaving it to endorse out of town militia, as a walk around for declaring them vigilantes which they really are is just weak ass sauce.
> 
> As long as there are SOME cops to blame, just like others want to blame ALL acts of rioting, looting, & vandalism on BLM, all cops have to unfortunately bear that blame.  There's no selective application of blame.  Unless you want to admit the position you're discussion is based on dishonesty.  And that everyone but the people you prefer are to blame only.











						Minneapolis Mayor Defends Stand-Down Order As Rioters Burn Police Precinct - NewsBreak
					

Another night of rioting, looting and arson in Minneapolis and again Mayor Jacob Frey appeared before reporters completely clueless. During an early morning press conference, Frey was grilled by reporters after multiple building in the city were set on-fire including a police...




					www.newsbreak.com
				












						Officials explain lack of police intervention during height of Friday’s protest, monuments' removal :: WRAL.com
					

One of the main questions about Friday's protest in downtown Raleigh -- where two Confederate statues were torn down by protesters -- was the lack of police presence at the height of it all.




					www.wral.com
				












						Chicago Police Officers Ordered To No Longer Use Force To Disperse Large Gatherings
					

"Until further notice, large gatherings will only be monitored until the crowd disperse on it's own," a CPD memo to commanders and officers states.




					chicago.cbslocal.com
				




people are on their own, so yes vigilantes are welcomed in plenty of places because of it.


----------



## Eric

BigMcGuire said:


> Just from the pictures I've seen - whacking someone repeatedly in the head repeatedly with a skateboard who has an AR 15 ..... Is not the smartest thing one can do.
> 
> I still think bringing a loaded gun to a protest is a hell no... but these protests are getting so damn violent, I can see why people are. Just near my home town (a few miles from my house) a tiny little protest (under a few hundred) resulted in blood.
> 
> I am refraining from making comments that put me on one side or another because I have not taken the time necessary to understand all the facts.
> 
> *I agree that if the police were allowed to do their jobs... people wouldn't feel the need ... - they shouldn't... feel the need to bring weapons. They should not.*



I would argue that shooting unarmed black people so freely shows they feel they have all the authority in the world to do their jobs and then some.

What they need is the proper training and reform. They are taught to react in the most egregious way possible to resistance and they can be taught not to as well, running away or even simply apprehending those like George Floyd should NOT result in a death sentence. As long as people don't agree on that topic, reform will never happen. Those marching in the streets, and let's focus on the 99% that are peaceful for a moment, are there for this very purpose.


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> Minneapolis Mayor Defends Stand-Down Order As Rioters Burn Police Precinct - NewsBreak
> 
> 
> Another night of rioting, looting and arson in Minneapolis and again Mayor Jacob Frey appeared before reporters completely clueless. During an early morning press conference, Frey was grilled by reporters after multiple building in the city were set on-fire including a police...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsbreak.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials explain lack of police intervention during height of Friday’s protest, monuments' removal :: WRAL.com
> 
> 
> One of the main questions about Friday's protest in downtown Raleigh -- where two Confederate statues were torn down by protesters -- was the lack of police presence at the height of it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wral.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago Police Officers Ordered To No Longer Use Force To Disperse Large Gatherings
> 
> 
> "Until further notice, large gatherings will only be monitored until the crowd disperse on it's own," a CPD memo to commanders and officers states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chicago.cbslocal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people are on their own, so yes vigilantes are welcomed in plenty of places because of it.



You might want to put all those goalposts down before you hurt yourself, and pick *an* argument to stick with.


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> You might want to put all those goalposts down before you hurt yourself, and pick *an* argument to stick with.



from your post


> That tired bit of using the factoid "that the police don't protect", doesn't work if they aren't doing the job of arresting those who break laws like arson. Leaving it to endorse out of town militia, as a walk around for declaring them vigilantes which they really are is just weak ass sauce.




don't be mad at me because you can't handle the sauce.  people are on their own, that is a FACT.


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> from your post
> 
> 
> don't be mad at me because you can't handle the sauce.  people are on their own, that is a FACT.



Also what you ignored, was your insistence & tendency to blame someone else, then someone else, then someone else, all the while shifting any blame from the police who are part of the very origin of why the protests began.

Goalposts = your latest person to blame


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> Also what you ignored, was your insistence & tendency to blame someone else, then someone else, then someone else, all the while shifting any blame from the police who are part of the very origin of why the protests began.
> 
> Goalposts = your latest person to blame



oh that is funny.

stated a while ago, governors are to blame for the laws passed & cops for how the enforce said laws, if you want to be stuck on :"the cops started it" that is on you.  I am not forgetting that aspect of it, I am pointing out with links no less that people are on their own w/o help from the cops due to orders from their governors.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> oh that is funny.
> 
> stated a while ago, governors are to blame for the laws passed & cops for how the enforce said laws, if you want to be stuck on :"the cops started it" that is on you.  I am not forgetting that aspect of it, I am pointing out with links no less that people are on their own w/o help from the cops due to orders from their governors.




Nope. Some cops say that but they’re just whining. They say ‘why won’t you let me do my job?’ Well, it’s not your JOB to kill unarmed black men and teargas peaceful protesters. Go do your REAL job of keeping neighborhoods safe and stop shooting anything that moves.


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> oh that is funny.
> 
> stated a while ago, governors are to blame for the laws passed & cops for how the enforce said laws, if you want to be stuck on :"the cops started it" that is on you.  I am not forgetting that aspect of it, I am pointing out with links no less that people are on their own w/o help from the cops due to orders from their governors.



Which I pointed out when you moved from the arsonists protestors, skipped blaming the police, jumped to politicians, then the governors.

Only one of those groups in that list are pulling the literal physical triggers.  Yet that's the group you continually skip over for blame.

Which is why I say goalposts.  I eagerly await to hear when you start blaming unwed mothers & absent fathers to complete the trope of those who say the things you do.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Nope. Some cops say that but they’re just whining. They say ‘why won’t you let me do my job?’ Well, it’s not your JOB to kill unarmed black men and teargas peaceful protesters. Go do your REAL job of keeping neighborhoods safe and stop shooting anything that moves.



did you even read what I linked?


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> Which I pointed out when you moved from the arsonists protestors, skipped blaming the police, jumped to politicians, then the governors.
> 
> Only one of those groups in that list are pulling the literal physical triggers.  Yet that's the group you continually skip over for blame.
> 
> Which is why I say goalposts.  I eagerly await to hear when you start blaming unwed mothers & absent fathers to complete the trope of those who say the things you do.



what thread are we on? 


> *17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest*




it appears YOU are the one moving the goal post here.


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> what thread are we on?
> 
> 
> it appears YOU are the one moving the goal post here.



I drifted with your drifting.  It's when you began adding numerous other goalposts I begged for mercy out of concern for your back trying to cart all those.

Remember?


Alli said:


> And here we go on WI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kenosha 'Vigilante' With Long Gun Arrested, Booked for Homicide
> 
> 
> A vigilante shot and killed 2 protesters on the 3rd night of Jacob Blake protests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tmz.com





jkcerda said:


> police are just watching it all burn, hence the reason regular citizens are stepping up, we are ALL going to pay for this cluster fuck as those businesses that burn leave people unemployed, who ends up with the tab for that? those still with jobs.





JayMysteri0 said:


> So the question is, why are the police watching it burn?  After all, once again it's because of their actions we have the unrest.  Still not willing to give the police their share of the burden here?  Instead wash your hands of outside individuals who come into their city, and basically escalate things further.  That's who you want to imagine is 'stepping up' in all of this.
> 
> Interesting approach.






jkcerda said:


> cops have no duty to protect, in places like portland the governor told them to stand down, even limited them to what they could use so they have their hands tied behind their back.  go arrest arsonist and get accused of even more police brutality because OMG you dared stop an arsonist.
> 
> SOME cops are indeed to blame, just like ALL the POS Mfing politicians who passed a gazillion laws the cops enforce in the first place, you need POLITICIANS to CHANGE the laws and rules of engagement for the cops.



I didn't start the journey.  I just mistakenly went along for the ride.


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> I drifted with your drifting.  It's when you began adding numerous other goalposts I begged for mercy out of concern for your back trying to cart all those.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't start the journey.  I just mistakenly went along for the ride.



no worries, I get lost plenty of times myself.


----------



## Renzatic

Let's account for the basics of the situation here.

At 17, he's not legally entitled to carry a weapon in public, let alone brandish one in force.

His mother drove him across state lines to participate in the counter-protests.

He wasn't there protecting anyone's property specifically, merely walking the streets alongside the crowds, gun in hand.

At some point, he allegedly shot into the crowd of people, potentially instigating the response we saw on the video.

After shooting the two people in that video, an act that could be considered self defense only if he didn't instigate the fight to begin with, he fired into a fleeing crowd of people.

There's almost no chance in hell this kid will be able to successfully plea self defense. It doesn't matter that others were breaking the law around him, destroying property, and acting uncivilized. He had no personal stake in the situation, and likely escalated the situation through his overeagerness to fire his weapon.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> Let's account for the basics of the situation here.
> 
> 1.At 17, he's not legally entitled to carry a weapon in public, let alone brandish one in force.
> 
> 2.His mother drove him across state lines to participate in the counter-protests.
> 
> 3.He wasn't there protecting anyone's property specifically, merely walking the streets alongside the crowds, gun in hand.
> 
> 4.At some point, he allegedly shot into the crowd of people, potentially instigating the response we saw on the video.
> 
> 5.After shooting the two people in that video, an act that could be considered self defense only if he didn't instigate the fight to begin with, he fired into a fleeing crowd of people.
> 
> 6.There's almost no chance in hell this kid will be able to successfully plea self defense. It doesn't matter that others were breaking the law around him, destroying property, and acting uncivilized. He had no personal stake in the situation, and likely escalated the situation through his overeagerness to fire his weapon.



1 he ended up alone, he was under adult supervision when he was with his buddies
2 mother of the year award there, f'ing moron that she is.
3 so?
4 plenty of speculation there, of course R-wing posters claim he was shot at first.
5. all bullets hit their intended targets.
6 depends on how the law is interpreted in the state, he has a lawyer already and it was overzealous to charge him with first degree .

any way it's sliced trash got taken out that night, KID is potentially fucked employment wise , glad to no police precinct will consider him for employment due to liability. IF he does end up in jail well, play stupid games/win stupid prizes.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> 1 he ended up alone, he was under adult supervision when he was with his buddies
> 2 mother of the year award there, f'ing moron that she is.
> 3 so?
> 4 plenty of speculation there, of course R-wing posters claim he was shot at first.
> 5. all bullets hit their intended targets.
> 6 depends on how the law is interpreted in the state, he has a lawyer already and it was overzealous to charge him with first degree .
> 
> any way it's sliced trash got taken out that night, KID is potentially fucked employment wise , glad to no police precinct will consider him for employment due to liability. IF he does end up in jail well, play stupid games/win stupid prizes.




1. What does that matter? He still ended up alone.

2. Yeah.

3. Vigilantism is illegal. Straight up.

4. If he was being shot at, ask yourself why it is was a guy with a skateboard that was running up on a kid armed with an AR15. 

5. Intended or not, it all depends on whether those bullets were legally fired or not.

6. That depends on who instigated the fight. If he started the fight with the intentions of using it as an excuse to kill someone, then he's guilty of 1st degree murder.

Also, I'm pretty sure that picture is fake news.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> 1 he ended up alone, he was under adult supervision when he was with his buddies
> 2 mother of the year award there, f'ing moron that she is.
> 3 so?
> 4 plenty of speculation there, of course R-wing posters claim he was shot at first.
> 5. all bullets hit their intended targets.
> 6 depends on how the law is interpreted in the state, he has a lawyer already and it was overzealous to charge him with first degree .
> 
> any way it's sliced trash got taken out that night, KID is potentially fucked employment wise , glad to no police precinct will consider him for employment due to liability. IF he does end up in jail well, play stupid games/win stupid prizes.




I just searched the Wisconsin sex offender DB - he’s not in there. Screenshots are easy to fake.

Those were human beings killed, not trash.


----------



## Renzatic

SuperMatt said:


> Those were human beings killed, not trash.




This is a mistake I see a lot of liberals make on the internet.

Don't try to appeal to the sympathies of those who entirely lack it. All they care about is seeing libtards bleed. People like RIttenhouse provide them their entertainment.


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> This is a mistake I see a lot of liberals make on the internet.
> 
> Don't try to appeal to the sympathies of those who entirely lack it. All they care about is seeing libtards bleed. People like RIttenhouse provide them their entertainment.



So I shouldn’t have felt bad for calling him a racist?


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> I just searched the Wisconsin sex offender DB - he’s not in there. Screenshots are easy to fake.
> 
> Those were human beings killed, not trash.



arsonist........... better?


----------



## Renzatic

SuperMatt said:


> So I shouldn’t have felt bad for calling him a racist?




Never call them racists. That allows them to play the race card card.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> So I shouldn’t have felt bad for calling him a racist?



the left uses that tactic all the time that it has lost any meaning, any time you guys get countered on anything your default answer appears to be calling someone racist.  so fire away since it doesn't mean shit anymore.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> the left uses that tactic all the time that it has lost any meaning, any time you guys get countered on anything your default answer appears to be calling someone racist.  so fire away since it doesn't mean shit anymore.




Everyone knows that calling someone racist is the "if you hate America so much then why don't you just GET OUT" of the left.


----------



## SuperMatt

Well luckily for me the counters so far have been fabricated screenshots and other lies.

By the way, Kenosha was quiet last night. The far-right pieces of garbage didn’t show up with guns, and the protest was peaceful. Guess the gun-humping wannabe vigilantes are the real problem. Maybe they should try some enlargement pills instead of compensating for it with firearms.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Well luckily for me the counters so far have been fabricated screenshots and other lies.
> 
> By the way, Kenosha was quiet last night. The far-right pieces of garbage didn’t show up with guns, and the protest was peaceful. Guess the gun-humping wannabe vigilantes are the real problem. Maybe they should try some enlargement pills instead of compensating for it with firearms.



yeah, all those businesses burning are nothing to look at..............


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> yeah, all those businesses burning are nothing to look at..............




You know how you have all these people running around saying we should show these protesters we mean business, and put them down first thing? You know how someone almost always replies that doing so would only make things worse? This is prime example as to why the latter is usually right.

See, when people congregate into a mob, they eventually starting acting almost as one very large, very angry animal. If someone tries to exert some force to break things up,  the mob won't quietly acquiesce to this sudden showing of stern, fatherly authority, it'll return that force in kind. The more you fight a mob, the more a mob fights back. 

This is what happened in Kenosha. It started out tense, but relatively peaceful. Then the police came in wanting to make a point, and start pushing people around. It turned into a small riot shortly thereafter. Once the police left, and the National Guard came in to pick up the slack, using the usual, not at all likely to impress people on the gun forums tactics, it simmered back down again.

You don't fight a mob. You corral it, and let it burn itself out.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> yeah, all those businesses burning are nothing to look at..............




No burning anything last night. Because the racist gun-humpers didn’t show up.


----------



## Lostngone

ericgtr12 said:


> Showing once again that anyone can get access to an assault weapon, a deranged Blue Lives Matter activist shoots into a crowd of protesters, killing two, has been charged.
> 
> From The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> View attachment 181



Not a assault rifle.

EDIT: Fixed, removed quotes for clarification purposes.


----------



## SuperMatt

His post says “assault weapon” - not “assault rifle’ - I thought we were supposed to pay attention to those details about deadly weapons? According to the definitions I’ve seen, that weapon is classified properly As an assault weapon:









						Assault weapon - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Lostngone

SuperMatt said:


> His post says “assault weapon” - not “assault rifle’ - I thought we were supposed to pay attention to those details about deadly weapons? According to the definitions I’ve seen, that weapon is classified properly As an assault weapon:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assault weapon - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org




I was just pointing out a fact. Other people in the thread were starting to reference “assault rifle”



BigMcGuire said:


> Jeez. Never understood how weapons like that can be obtained... I understand personal defense weapons but an assault rifle like that should be reserved for LEO, special ops military, etc


----------



## Eric

Lostngone said:


> I was just pointing out a fact. Other people in the thread were starting to reference “assault rifle”



But the fact is I didn't say that.


----------



## Renzatic

It's one of those splitting hairs thing. Technically, only a handful of people own an honest to god assault weapon, and you can't just go out and buy one in the store. What most everyone has are bog standard hunting rifles, geared up to look like you can go to war with them.

I don't think you can buy a gun that can even switch to burst mode, and you sure as hell can't get one that fires automatic. That makes them not-assault weapons.

But for average, every day terminology, it seems to be that if you shoot at deer with your gun, it's a hunting rifle. Shoot at people with it, it's an assault rifle.


----------



## Lostngone

ericgtr12 said:


> But the fact is I didn't say that.




Sorry, fixed.


----------



## BigMcGuire

Lostngone said:


> I was just pointing out a fact. Other people in the thread were starting to reference “assault rifle”












						Is the AR-15 an Assault Rifle? | Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Association
					

The AR-15 is being dubbed the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters, and the act of terrorism in Orlando has renewed calls for an “assault weapons” ban, but by any definition of the term, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Another misconception is that the “AR” in AR-15 is an abbreviation for...




					www.ok2a.org
				




How interesting. Learn something new everyday - and I've shot AKs - fully automatic - korean war era. Thanks for the correction.

Never seen an AR-15 in person. Never been much of a gun person because Apple gets most of my $ and all my rental agreements in California say I can't own a gun. So yes, while I've shot with PD departments and relatives on farms - I've never owned a gun and I'm fairly ignorant on guns outside of WW2.

Most favorite rifle I've shot is the M1 Garand - ping!

I still stand by my statement. Guns modeled after people killing assault rifles, assault rifles themselves - should be limited to police, military, etc. And protests are the last place people should be bringing guns like these.


----------



## Eric

BigMcGuire said:


> Is the AR-15 an Assault Rifle? | Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Association
> 
> 
> The AR-15 is being dubbed the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters, and the act of terrorism in Orlando has renewed calls for an “assault weapons” ban, but by any definition of the term, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Another misconception is that the “AR” in AR-15 is an abbreviation for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ok2a.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How interesting. Learn something new everyday - and I've shot AKs - fully automatic - korean war era. Thanks for the correction.
> 
> Never seen an AR-15 in person. Never been much of a gun person because Apple gets most of my $ and all my rental agreements in California say I can't own a gun. So yes, while I've shot a lot with PD departments and relatives on farms - I've never owned a gun and I'm fairly ignorant on guns outside of WW2.



I'm guessing when the shooter runs into a crowd with one that people aren't debating nomenclature.


----------



## BigMcGuire

ericgtr12 said:


> I'm guessing when the shooter runs into a crowd with one that people aren't debating nomenclature.




Agreed, I'll be assuming the worst and reacting as such. Just boggles my mind that we let people bring these to high stress, dangerous, high tension events with lots of people.


----------



## Lostngone

ericgtr12 said:


> I'm guessing when the shooter runs into a crowd with one that people aren't debating nomenclature.




They might not be debating the nomenclature but I can guarantee you there’s a huge difference between a non-registered semi-automatic AR-15 and a NFA registered select fire M-16(Assault Rifle).


----------



## JayMysteri0

Lostngone said:


> They might not be debating the nomenclature but I can guarantee you there’s a huge difference between a non-registered semi-automatic AR-15 and a NFA registered select fire M-16(Assault Rifle).



The difference is usually important to those who want to discuss something other than the true topic.  As there's never any question about the lethality of ANY such weapon.  Which is the true point & topic.


----------



## Lostngone

JayMysteri0 said:


> The difference is usually important to those who want to discuss something other than the true topic.  As there's never any question about the lethality of ANY such weapon.  Which is the true point & topic.




Kind of hard to have a intelligent discussion when one side can’t even define what they are talking about.
Sorry “assault weapon” doesn’t really cover anything specific. A butter knife could be an “assault weapon”.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Lostngone said:


> Kind of hard to have a intelligent discussion when one side can’t even define what they are talking about.
> Sorry “assault weapon” doesn’t really cover anything specific. A butter knife could be an “assault weapon”.



Then how about a simple basic conversation?

The weapon being discussed can kill and may have, which is the actual point.

Selectively obsessing on some details over others, does NOT make for intelligent or even honest discussion.


----------



## Lostngone

JayMysteri0 said:


> Then how about a simple basic conversation?
> 
> The weapon being discussed can kill and may have, which is the actual point




ANY semi-automatic firearm can do that. Just because the one pictured in this thread is black and looks a certain way doesn’t make it any more dangerous than your average semi-automatic hunting rifle. It could even be argued it is LESS lethal.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Lostngone said:


> ANY semi-automatic firearm can do that. Just because the one pictured in this thread is black and looks a certain way doesn’t make it any more dangerous than your average semi-automatic hunting rifle. It could even be argued it is LESS lethal.



Does it still kill people, as a weapon supposedly did here in this instance?

If so, that's the simple relevant point.  Whether it was semi or fully automatic is just wallowing in minutiae to deflect.

Firearm shoots bullets, bullets strike humans, humans die, firearm shot by ANOTHER human ( _supposedly a youth NOT allowed to have said firearm_ ) that kills other humans was not legally empowered to do so. = Simple relevant version to avoid unnecessary confusion.


----------



## Lostngone

JayMysteri0 said:


> Does it still kill people, as a weapon supposedly did here in this instance?
> 
> If so, that's the simple relevant point.  Whether it was semi or fully automatic is just wallowing in minutiae to deflect.
> 
> Firearm shoots bullets, bullets strike humans, humans die, firearm shot by ANOTHER human ( _supposedly a youth NOT allowed to have said firearm_ ) that kills other humans was not legally empowered to do so. = Simple relevant version to avoid unnecessary confusion.




If that is the angle you are playing then here is mine.

Please see: U.S. Constitution, subsection, Bill or Rights, Second  Amendment.


----------



## BigMcGuire

Lostngone said:


> If that is the angle you are playing then here is mine.
> 
> Please see, U.S. Constitution subsection, Bill or Rights, Second  Amendment.




Do these great documents give a 17 year old the right to bring a firearm to a protest? I’m not advocating getting rid of guns. I am very clearly arguing against bringing them to protests.


----------



## Lostngone

BigMcGuire said:


> Do these great documents give a 17 year old the right to bring a firearm to a protest? I’m not advocating getting rid of guns. I am very clearly arguing against bringing them to protests.




Last time I checked I am pretty sure the murder is illegal. Also putting yourself at risk/in danger just so you can claim self-defense I believe is also illegal.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Lostngone said:


> If that is the angle you are playing then here is mine.
> 
> Please see: U.S. Constitution, subsection, Bill or Rights, Second  Amendment.



My angle involves nothing that elaborate.

Firearm/Gun killed people.  Firearm/Gun used by someone who shouldn't have had it.

It doesn't matter if the gun was semi auto/full auto, shot unicorn horns w rainbow sprinkles, or spiked bars with word 'Bang' hanging down from it written on cloth.

Firearm/Gun killed people.  That was NOT legal.

Simple.



Lostngone said:


> Last time I checked I am pretty sure the murder is illegal. Also putting yourself at risk/in danger just so you can claim self-defense I believe is also illegal.



On all of that I agree.  Which is why the choice of firearm is irrelevant.  The person may have killed people, and did so by intentionally placing themself in a situation they did NOT need to be in or legally empowered to be involved in, which they felt they need to escape by using a firearm they shouldn't have had.

Still simple.


----------



## SuperMatt

Lostngone said:


> If that is the angle you are playing then here is mine.
> 
> Please see: U.S. Constitution, subsection, Bill or Rights, Second  Amendment.




Was Dennis the Menace part of a well-regulated militia?


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1299108668139425792/
Holy F-

Also as posted by someone in PRSI, it indeed maybe illegal in Wisconsin to place oneself in jeopardy intentionally to then cite "self defense".


----------



## Eric

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1299108668139425792/
> Holy F-
> 
> Also as posted by someone in PRSI, it indeed maybe illegal in Wisconsin to place oneself in jeopardy intentionally to then cite "self defense".



Republicans who are in charge see this person as a real American, even after the murders. It's the petty looters they have a problem with, you know, real criminals.


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1299108668139425792/
> Holy F-
> 
> Also as posted by someone in PRSI, it indeed maybe illegal in Wisconsin to place oneself in jeopardy intentionally to then cite "self defense".



look at the plus side, he will NEVER be a cop now.


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> look at the plus side, he will NEVER be a cop now.



Small comfort if he already has killed 2 people & injured 1.


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> Small comfort if he already has killed 2 people & injured 1.



in self defense.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> in self defense.




in his mind


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> in his mind



kid had an AR5 with 30 rd mags, who got shot? ONLY THOSE who assaulted him.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> kid had an AR5 with 30 rd mags, who got shot? ONLY THOSE who assaulted him.




Yeah the kid is a fucking hero. I’m sure that will make the families of the people he killed feel better. I’m sure the endorsement of racist subreddits will also help his case in court. Good news for Kyle: I heard the white power gangs in prison are recruiting.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Yeah the kid is a fucking hero. I’m sure that will make the families of the people he killed feel better. I’m sure the endorsement of racist subreddits will also help his case in court. Good news for Kyle: I heard the white power gangs in prison are recruiting.



well aware you guys prefer it the other way, with the kid dead but he wanted to live so he gets a trial by 12 instead of getting carried by 6.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> well aware you guys prefer it the other way, with the kid dead but he wanted to live so he gets a trial by 12 instead of getting carried by 6.




His life wasn’t in danger. Before he started shooting, the “threat” to his life was somebody throwing a plastic bag. I guess it could have landed on his face and suffocated him?


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> His life wasn’t in danger. Before he started shooting, the “threat” to his life was somebody throwing a plastic bag. I guess it could have landed on his face and suffocated him?



it was a brick, a skateboard & a guy with a gun... kid went  3 for 3.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> it was a brick, a skateboard & a guy with a gun... kid went  3 for 3.




The first encounter was a plastic bag ... once the kid starts shooting, people are welcome to attack him in whatever way they see fit to stop him from becoming the next mass-shooter. But are you saying death-by-skateboard is likely? If the other guy with a gun was such a threat, why didn’t he fire a single shot?

This narrative is utter BS and everybody knows it. The kid’s gonna have a long time to think about his actions in prison.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> The first encounter was a plastic bag ... once the kid starts shooting, people are welcome to attack him in whatever way they see fit to stop him from becoming the next mass-shooter. But are you saying death-by-skateboard is likely? If the other guy with a gun was such a threat, why didn’t he fire a single shot?
> 
> This narrative is utter BS and everybody knows it. The kid’s gonna have a long time to think about his actions in prison.



everything I have seen is either a brick or Molotov cocktail, got a source for that bag you claim it was?
kid was not a threat to ANYONE UNTIL he was assaulted. shit no one other than those who assaulted him got shot, kid is better shot than most cops.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> everything I have seen is either a brick or Molotov cocktail, got a source for that bag you claim it was?
> kid was not a threat to ANYONE UNTIL he was assaulted. shit no one other than those who assaulted him got shot, kid is better shot than most cops.




You're just doing this to antagonize people, aren't you?


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> You're just doing this to antagonize people, aren't you?



posting facts & asking for links backing up their claims? well sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...........


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> everything I have seen is either a brick or Molotov cocktail, got a source for that bag you claim it was?
> kid was not a threat to ANYONE UNTIL he was assaulted. shit no one other than those who assaulted him got shot, kid is better shot than most cops.







yaxomoxay said:


> The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, *Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant* . The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag.




I don’t know what your “sources” are, but it appears you are pulling things out of your ass.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> posting facts & asking for links backing up their claims? well sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...........




No, you're posting a very one sided opinion, and ignoring any counterpoints.

Your usual spiel, in other words.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> I don’t know what your “sources” are, but it appears you are pulling things out of your ass.



says the guy that was sure it was a bag, I posted the video that shows a heavy object hurled.  where is your video or source for the bag?



Renzatic said:


> No, you're posting a very one sided opinion, and ignoring any counterpoints.
> 
> Your usual spiel, in other words.



I didn't know I was supposed to argue your side as well . if you can't back up your "counterpoints." that is not MY fault.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> says the guy that was sure it was a bag, I posted the video that shows a heavy object hurled.  where is your video or source for the bag?
> 
> 
> I didn't know I was supposed to argue your side as well . if you can't back up your "counterpoints." that is not MY fault.




Yaxo posted it, said it was from the criminal complaint... I found what appears to be the document he cited here:









						CLICK HERE to read the criminal complaint filed against Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha County
					

Click here to view this item from http://www.journaltimes.com.




					journaltimes.com


----------



## Renzatic

Don't get me wrong, JK, you're a good guy. Love you like a brother (olol friendzoned). But political conversations with you usually go something like this:

JK: The sky is red.

Everyone else: No, it's objectively blue.

JK: But I've seen the sky turn red before. The sky is red.

Everyone Else: No. It's blue. Here's a link showing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and another link showing that said chemicals absorb light in the lower part of the spectrum.

JK: But it's red at sunset.

Everyone Else: Yeah, that's light reflecting off dust particles and other gasses at an oblique angle in the lower atmosphere. That doesn't make the sky red.

JK: But the sky isn't blue all the time.

Everyone Else: No, the sky's still blue, it just looks red under these certain circumstances.

JK: Let's just accept that sometimes the sky is red, and sometimes the sky is blue.

Everyone Else: OKAY! FINE!

-3 Days later-

JK: The sky is red.

Everyone Else: No, it's not!

JK: So why can't you prove it's not?


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Yaxo posted it, said it was from the criminal complaint... I found what appears to be the document he cited here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CLICK HERE to read the criminal complaint filed against Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha County
> 
> 
> Click here to view this item from http://www.journaltimes.com.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journaltimes.com



thank you .
video shows otherwise but that is what the trial is for.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> Don't get me wrong, JK, you're a good guy. Love you like a brother (olol friendzoned). But political conversations with you usually go something like this:
> 
> JK: The sky is red.
> 
> Everyone else: No, it's objectively blue.
> 
> JK: But I've seen the sky turn red before. The sky is red.
> 
> Everyone Else: No. It's blue. Here's a link showing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and another link showing that said chemicals absorb light in the lower part of the spectrum.
> 
> JK: But it's red at sunset.
> 
> Everyone Else: Yeah, that's light reflecting off dust particles and other gasses at an oblique angle in the lower atmosphere. That doesn't make the sky red.
> 
> JK: But the sky isn't blue all the time.
> 
> Everyone Else: No, the sky's still blue, it just looks red under these certain circumstances.
> 
> JK: Let's just accept that sometimes the sky is red, and sometimes the sky is blue.
> 
> Everyone Else: OKAY! FINE!
> 
> -3 Days later-
> 
> JK: The sky is red.
> 
> Everyone Else: No, it's not!
> 
> JK: So why can't you prove it's not?



looks pretty fucking red to me, that is the sky in the BG





FUCKING win again, 2 packs of Oreos, hand them in bitches........


----------



## Renzatic

THAT'S THE LAVAS OF MUSTAFAR, NOT THE SKY! GOD, YOU'RE STUPID!


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> I don’t know what your “sources” are, but it appears you are pulling things out of your ass.




My sources are the criminal complaint and the video. Not sure what you’re criticizing.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> THAT'S THE LAVAS OF MUSTAFAR, NOT THE SKY! GOD, YOU'RE STUPID!



BULLSHIT, I found it on the internet so it's true.


----------



## jkcerda

yaxomoxay said:


> My sources are the criminal complaint and the video. Not sure what you’re criticizing.



me, he was criticizing me.

video shows the guys attacking the kid, this one is clearer and first object thrown was a bag BUT the same guy who ended up shot in the head did go after the kid, kid stops to call cops it seems


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> BULLSHIT, I found it on the internet so it's true.




EAT A BAG OF HELL!


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> video shows the guys attacking the kid, this one is clearer and first object thrown was a bag BUT the same guy who ended up shot in the head did go after the kid, kid stops to call cops it seems




Good video. Though it states exactly what I've said previously, it doesn't show what started the altercation, only the response. Was he walking along, minding his own business, when suddenly these three guys decided to chase him down to kick his ass? Did he say or do something that caused these three to attack him?

We'll know soon enough, because one guy lived to tell his side of the tale in front of a jury, and there will probably be multiple eyewitnesses to the incident.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> Good video. Though like I said previously, it doesn't show what started the altercation, only the response. Was he walking along, minding his own business, when suddenly these three guys decided to chase him down to kick his ass? Did he say or do something that caused these three to attack him?
> 
> We'll know soon enough, because one guy lived to tell his side of the tale in front of a jury, and there will probably be multiple eyewitnesses to the incident.



it was a kid, probably looked like an easy target compared to the other clowns he was with earlier, still fucking stupid to go attack a moron with an AR  regardles of reason, the moron was not firing at anyone else other than those who attacked him. on the video there are plenty of shots being fired so if I pull a guess out of my ass I would say shit started and continued elsewhere and he was separated from the group he was with.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eyewitness to Wisconsin shootings: 'He came with a gun and was picking fights'
					






					observers.france24.com
				




More eyewitness accounts.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> it was a kid, probably looked like an easy target compared to the other clowns he was with earlier, still fucking stupid to go attack a moron with an AR  regardles of reason, the moron was not firing at anyone else other than those who attacked him. on the video there are plenty of shots being fired so if I pull a guess out of my ass I would say shit started and continued elsewhere and he was separated from the group he was with.




I watched the entirety of your video. I didn't know that he ran that far from the site of the initial shooting, and that the group of people shot in the 2nd incident weren't involved at all in the first. They were likely responding to people saying "that kid just shot a guy" type reports, saw him running down the street, and decided to see if they could stop who they saw, at that moment, as a potential murder suspect.

Yax is right. The whole thing is a clusterfuck.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Eyewitness to Wisconsin shootings: 'He came with a gun and was picking fights'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> observers.france24.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More eyewitness accounts.



the link you just posted shows him offering medical attention to those hurt, congrats. 
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298564220565561346/


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> I watched the entirety of your video. I didn't know that he ran that far from the site of the initial shooting, and that the group of people shot in the 2nd incident weren't involved at all in the first. They were likely responding to people saying "that kid just shot a guy" type reports, saw him running down the street, and decided to see if they could stop who they saw, at that moment, as a potential murder suspect.
> 
> Yax is right. The whole thing is a clusterfuck.




From the article:



> He was antagonising the crowd all night. He wasn't with the militias, he wasn't from down here, he wasn't one of the protesters. He came with a gun and was picking fights with protesters.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> I watched the entirety of your video. I didn't know that he ran that far from the site of the initial shooting, and that the group of people shot in the 2nd incident weren't involved at all in the first. They were likely responding to people saying "that kid just shot a guy" type reports, saw him running down the street, and decided to see if they could stop who they saw, at that moment, as a potential murder suspect.
> 
> Yax is right. The whole thing is a clusterfuck.



from Matts link


> We struggled up and down with the police. They pushed us back even farther and eventually, around 63rd Street and Sheridan, there’s a car dealership, the police cracked down too hard and the crowd started to disperse.* That’s when people started breaking some windows and someone decided to open fire*.



  looks like SHT and that is how he got separated


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> the link you just posted shows him offering medical attention to those hurt, congrats.
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298564220565561346/




Yeah he seems like a true American Hero. You are right. Let’s carve his face into Mount Rushmore.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> From the article:



and yet the video in the same link shows the complete opposite. guy offers medical help .


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> from Matts link
> looks like SHT and that is how he got separated




I know the white killer with an ar-15 is innocent and the evil protesters are to blame. You key in on only the bits that appeal to you. Hey if you want to defend a murderer, that’s on you.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Yeah he seems like a true American Hero. You are right. Let’s carve his face into Mount Rushmore.



don't be silly, there won't be room there after trumps face gets carved in there.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> and yet the video in the same link shows the complete opposite. guy offers medical help .




‘Wow a 10-second video just invalidated everything else he did. What a moron.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> the link you just posted shows him offering medical attention to those hurt, congrats.




Given what else is said in that article, cherrypicking the one good from other, more suspect quotes won't anything except make it look like you're going out of your way to excuse this kid, even if he doesn't deserve it.


----------



## yaxomoxay

My recommendation in this case is just to wait trial and wait for new info . It’s clear that this case is very complex.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> ‘Wow a 10-second video just invalidated everything else he did. What a moron.



video vs words ..........................


----------



## jkcerda

yaxomoxay said:


> My recommendation in this case is just to wait trial and wait for new info . It’s clear that this case is very complex.



where is the fun in that? if I didn't jump to conclusions that suit me and flew off the handle I would not get any exercise............

it's an amazing shit show, I don't see first degree applying here, maybe 2nd degree manslaughter if anything?


----------



## Lostngone

He legally could not defend himself. Everyone that attacked him was Black. Even if he only had a rolled up news paper the press would say he was targeting black people in his attacks.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> Given what else is said in that article, cherrypicking the one good from other, more suspect quotes won't anything except make it look like you're going out of your way to excuse this kid, even if he doesn't deserve it.



I ONLY argue BOTH sides of a point when I am alone in the shower, even then I win against myself and get some cookies afterwards.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> and yet the video in the same link shows the complete opposite. guy offers medical help .




This is probably the basic truth of it: there are probably no real good guys or bad guys in this. Kid is hopped up on some Doing Your Armed Duty For The Community BS, but he's not some far right wingnut out to kill people. The first guy he shot may have been a justified shooting. We don't know. The second group? They were going off incomplete information. They see a kid with an AR15 running away from the scene of a shooting, (which was the ABSOLUTE WORST thing he could've done in that situation), and hearing people shout that he just killed a guy, think they're going to do their good for the community, and go to stop the kid. One dies, one is injured.

This is why getting a bunch of untrained civilian types to act as play policemen is a terrible fucking idea. They don't have the training or discipline to follow a standard protocol, and keep the situation from escalating. They're just reacting to things in their immediate vicinity based upon what they think is going on. If things are volatile enough, chaos ends up breaking out, and a bunch of innocent people end up getting hurt and killed by everyone else's good intentions.

Kid's not a murderer, but he's guilty of manslaughter. He got in over his head in a situation he's not mentally equipped to handle, and made things considerably worse with his response.


----------



## Renzatic

Lostngone said:


> He legally could not defend himself. Everyone that attacked him was Black. Even if he only had a rolled up news paper the press would say he was targeting black people in his attacks.




There's nothing worse than watching someone try to find a reason to feel sorry for themselves.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> This is probably the basic truth of it: there are probably no real good guys or bad guys in this. Kid is hopped up on some Doing Your Armed Duty For The Community BS, but he's not some far right wingnut out to kill people. The first guy he shot may have been a justified shooting. We don't know. The second group? They were going off incomplete information. They see a kid with an AR15 running away from the scene of a shooting, (which was the ABSOLUTE WORST thing he could've done in that situation), and hearing people shout that he just killed a guy, think they're going to do their good for the community, and go to stop the kid. One dies, one is injured.
> 
> This is why getting a bunch of untrained civilian types to act as play policemen is a terrible fucking idea. They don't have the training or discipline to follow a standard protocol. They're just reacting to things in their immediate vicinity based upon what they think is going on. In a concentrated enough situation, chaos ends up breaking out, and a bunch of innocent people end up getting hurt and killed by everyone else's good intentions.
> 
> Kid's not a murderer, but he's guilty of manslaughter. He got in over his head in a situation he's not mentally equipped to handle, and made things considerably worse with his response.



what is worse is that his dumb ass mother took the little shit there, wtf if wrong with her?  training wise he was a better shot that plenty of cops. look at the assholes from los Angeles who shot up the ladies throwing newspapers 




cops did not get charged and kept their jobs, wtf?


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> There's nothing worse than watching someone try to find a reason to feel sorry for themselves.



never seen a guy crying at the sight of his marriage certificate huh............


----------



## SuperMatt

Lostngone said:


> He legally could not defend himself. Everyone that attacked him was Black. Even if he only had a rolled up news paper the press would say he was targeting black people in his attacks.




???? Are you going for a mashup of factually incorrect and racist Into one post? Hey you also got the evil mainstream media in there too!


----------



## Lostngone

SuperMatt said:


> ???? Are you going for a mashup of factually incorrect and racist Into one post? Hey you also got the evil mainstream media in there too!




factually incorrect ??? Are you upset because I didn’t blame President Trump for this?


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> what is worse is that his dumb ass mother took the little shit there, wtf if wrong with her?  training wise he was a better shot that plenty of cops. look at the assholes from los Angeles who shot up the ladies throwing newspapers




Some people need to realize that there's more to being a peacekeeper than having a long gun, a few hours of training at the rifle range, and a bunch of bragging and shit talk amongst your beer buddies around the campfire (we're goddamn warrior poets, Bill). You go into a scenario like this with nothing more to your name than your badass 'tude, and belief that you're god's gift to law and justice, all you'll do is make shit worse, guaranteed.



> cops did not get charged and kept their jobs, wtf?




They probably felt threatened.


----------



## Renzatic

Lostngone said:


> factually incorrect ??? Are you upset because I didn’t blame President Trump for this?




Wasn't a single black guy chasing that kid. Hell, one of them even had a gun.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> it's an amazing shit show, I don't see first degree applying here, maybe 2nd degree manslaughter if anything?




It's likely a case of Imperfect Self-Defense, which is usually classified as 1st Degree Manslaughter.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> It's likely a case of Imperfect Self-Defense, which is usually classified as 1st Degree Manslaughter.



they might haggle on an agreement , DA's tend to throw the most charges they can just to plea down to something else.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> they might haggle on an agreement , DA's tend to throw the most charges they can just to plea down to something else.




The lesser charge in this situation will be 1st Degree Manslaughter, which they'll probably go for, since it's hard to prove malice aforethought from the evidence on hand.

2nd Degree Manslaughter is accidental death, and nothing here was an accident. It all depends on whether he went out looking for a reason to kill someone (malice aforethought), or knowingly killed someone for what he believed to be self defense, but his prior actions leading up to the killing render it unjustifiable (imperfect self-defense, or 1st Degree Manslaughter)


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> The lesser charge in this situation will be 1st Degree Manslaughter, which they'll probably go for, since it's hard to prove malice aforethought from the evidence on hand.
> 
> 2nd Degree Manslaughter is accidental death, and nothing here was an accident. It all depends on whether he went out looking for a reason to kill someone (malice aforethought), or knowingly killed someone for what he believed to be self defense, but his prior actions leading up to the killing render it unjustifiable (imperfect self-defense, or 1st Degree Manslaughter)



 one way or another the kid is fucked, even if the charges clear and he has his inbred mom to thank for it, how fucked in the head do you have to be to take your own son to that shit show?


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> The lesser charge in this situation will be 1st Degree Manslaughter, which they'll probably go for, since it's hard to prove malice aforethought from the evidence on hand.




I agree, and it would make sense (unless new evidence pops up)


----------



## Lostngone

Renzatic said:


> Wasn't a single black guy chasing that kid. Hell, one of them even had a gun.




Not one? Well even the videos posted here would contradict that statement but who cares about facts.


----------



## Renzatic

Lostngone said:


> Not one? Well even the videos posted here would contradict that statement but who cares about facts.




There were probably a couple lingering about in the background, but those directly involved were all white.


----------



## jkcerda

fucking spot on , that's 3 bags of oreos and one bag of mothers cookies you guys owe me





						Anatomy of a Catastrophe | Bullshido
					






					www.bullshido.net
				




pay up bitches.......... please read the whole damn article.


> *Failure 2B: Bullies bullying bullies is the new bullying.*
> At some point, the convicted sex offender throws something at Kyle. It looks like Kyle’s counterfeit confidence in his mastery of the situation is shot, because he immediately attempts to retreat. This emboldens several of the more belligerent protesters, including the thrower. They elect to pursue Kyle.
> 
> I still, for the life of me cannot understand the ‘why’ of this. They had won. The silly man-child was defeated and running off with his tail between his legs. Had they let Kyle run away, we have no incident to discuss. But they just could not help themselves. It wasn’t enough to win, they had to rub it in. These are not protesters anymore. They’re now bullies and none too bright.
> 
> *Failure 2C: Knowing when to quit is for quitters!*
> The bullies pursue the retreating Kyle. In the videos, Kyle is _obviously in full retreat_. I don’t know what is going through his head, but I suspect he had begun to realize that oper8r life is not the video game fantasy he thought it was. The delusions his parents should have trained out of him are crumbling.  It could have been over then. Some hilarious YouTube videos of Kyle being chased off by a group of brave protesters would have been a crushing victory for the pursuers. Imagine the memes!
> 
> Of course, that is exactly when something truly, magnificently stupid happens. This will not be the stupidest thing to happen over the course of what follows. However, it will push the consequences for everybody’s foolishness across the point of no return.






> *Failure 3C: Into the breach.*
> Several protestors take advantage of Kyle’s fall to physically assault him. I want to pause for a moment to acknowledge that some of these people probably felt they were helping to apprehend a rampaging killer. That is noble. It is also stupid on at least two levels. First, Kyle was not a rampaging killer, nor did any of his behavior up to this point resemble one. Second, Kyle was well-armed and terrified. Nevertheless, unencumbered by comprehension or objective reasoning, several brave souls attacked.






> *Failure of Law and Order™:* Three convicted felons picked a fight with kid during some riots. It is absolutely unfair to hold protesters responsible for the actions of a few bad apples. Conversely, you cannot pretend there are no bad apples. That’s also how objectivity works. If you believe that a few bad cops warrants defunding the whole of law enforcement, or if you’ve ever argued that a few bad gun owners is justification for banning guns, then you might want to take a good look at some of the peaceful protests we have been enjoying in 2020. If you are mad, save some of that righteous fury for those who give a peaceful movement a bad name. There is plenty of stupid to go around, please apply your scorn appropriately.


----------



## SuperMatt

Facebook ignored over 450 reports about the call to arms in Kenosha. Imagine if there was no Facebook, or if they actually gave a shit about anything other than maximizing rage-clicks. We’d have 2 fewer shooting victims and a 17-year old wouldn’t be headed to prison.









						A Kenosha Militia Facebook Event Asking Attendees To Bring Weapons Was Reported 455 Times. Moderators Said It Didn’t Violate Any Rules.
					

CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the reason the militia page and an associated event remained online after a shooting that killed two people was due to “an operational mistake.”




					www.buzzfeednews.com


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Facebook ignored over 450 reports about the call to arms in Kenosha. Imagine if there was no Facebook, or if they actually gave a shit about anything other than maximizing rage-clicks. We’d have 2 fewer shooting victims and a 17-year old wouldn’t be headed to prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Kenosha Militia Facebook Event Asking Attendees To Bring Weapons Was Reported 455 Times. Moderators Said It Didn’t Violate Any Rules.
> 
> 
> CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the reason the militia page and an associated event remained online after a shooting that killed two people was due to “an operational mistake.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.buzzfeednews.com



If the morons shot had left the kid alone .......


----------



## Alli

jkcerda said:


> If the morons shot had left the kid alone .......




What? He might have gone on to shoot more people?


----------



## JayMysteri0

Alli said:


> What? He might have gone on to shoot more people?



Exactly.

Here's thing I don't think a few refuse to see.  It's easy for many Black people to go all 'militant' and see the worst in White people when it's deserved or undeserved.  You saw early on though, when BLM critics were making up riots happening then, and making it sound like BLM was about Black people only talking about their lives.  You saw it was actually people of various races saying Black Lives Matter.  It's people giving a shit about other people, and recognizing that shit keeps happening to one group of people over & over that doesn't happen to them.  Shit that people recognized and were tired of seeing.  Then you see a group of asshats who don't have an issue, or think confed monuments in friggin' New Mexico should stay, bringing arms.  Who the hell is stepping up with fucking skateboards and no training trying to stop people armed with bow & arrow, pistols, and rifles?

The issue isn't why did these guys do something like that.

The issue is WHY they had to do something like that, that risks life & limb?

In each occasion, those men were not Black.  They were guys who were trying to protect others, and seem to do so instinctively for others.  ANY others.

WHY are they trying to protect people?


----------



## jkcerda

Alli said:


> What? He might have gone on to shoot more people?



the ONLY ones shot where the ones who were a threat to him, he had a 30 rd mag and no one else was shot.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> the ONLY ones shot where the ones who were a threat to him, he had a 30 rd mag and no one else was shot.




Y’all still defending Kenosha Killer Kyle?


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Y’all still defending Kenosha Killer Kyle?



pointing out the fact it was self defense and that your narrative does not fit what you want is not "defending"............


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> pointing out the fact it was self defense and that your narrative does not fit what you want is not "defending"............




Pointing out the “fact” that it was self-defense? That’s not a fact one way or the other - it’s a determination made based on other facts.

The most important determination will be made by a jury with all the facts made available to them. At this point, it is only an opinion that it is self-defense.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Pointing out the “fact” that it was self-defense? That’s not a fact one way or the other - it’s a determination made based on other facts.
> 
> The most important determination will be made by a jury with all the facts made available to them. At this point, it is only an opinion that it is self-defense.



my opinion is based on video shown, even your video, yours if flawed to the degree you deem him a killer.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> my opinion is based on video shown, even your video, yours if flawed to the degree you deem him a killer.




There is no disputing the fact that he killed people. Whether it was in self-defense or not... will be determined by the jury.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> There is no disputing the fact that he killed people. Whether it was in self-defense or not... will be determined by the jury.



Agreed. I do wonder if the mom will face any charges for putting the Kid in danger


----------



## SuperMatt

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1299056687857496064/


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1299056687857496064/



exactly, if there is someone minding his own business you leave him alone. or else you get shot.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> exactly, if there is someone minding his own business you leave him alone. or else you get shot.




If the other guy managed to land his shot, we'd be here arguing which of them was the good guy with the gun.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> If the other guy managed to land his shot, we'd be here arguing which of them was the good guy with the gun.



MISSING THE Laugh emoty..

wtf is *" good " *about going to defend shit that is NOT yours ? TWO stacks of morons are meeting and turning things into a bigger shit show than it needs to be,  I fucking feel for the business owners that are losing everything and for all the people unemployed due to all these angry retards who fuck everyone over except the very people they are angry about  BUT in what fucking mind does it look ok to strap on an AR and got play fucking batman? *" Oh look I am going to scare me up some libtards & own those pieces of shit"* ,  r-wing morons fucking baffle me, IF it's your business that is in peril OR if you got HIRED to be there THEN I could probably understand, but to put yourself in that position just for the fuck of it? you are asking for a fucking Darwin award & worse you are going to earn it for free.  business owners can defend their own shit OR HIRE someone to do so , cops ain't doing shit since their hands are tied but that does not mean a bunch of thugs should go play call of duty and real life because there is no mother fucking reset button as the moron who just got shot found out.  
My duty is to me/myself/I/my family, outside of that I don't particularly give a shit , if I fucking engage in ANY conflict it's MY fucking ass. let the shit burn.


----------



## jkcerda

what a shit show


----------



## ouimetnick

jkcerda said:


> well aware you guys prefer it the other way, with the kid dead but he wanted to live so he gets a trial by 12 instead of getting carried by 6.




Lets be real, he and his mother put his life in danger. As the dumbass police chief said, "iF eVeRyOnE oBeYeD tHe CuRfEw" *INCLUDING* Kyle, this wouldn't have happened. He should have stayed home. If he was defending his own home against intruders, I would be singing a different tune.


----------



## jkcerda

ouimetnick said:


> Lets be real, he and his mother put his life in danger. As the dumbass police chief said, "iF eVeRyOnE oBeYeD tHe CuRfEw" *INCLUDING* Kyle, this wouldn't have happened. He should have stayed home. If he was defending his own home against intruders, I would be singing a different tune.



here you go, and like I said, mom should pick up some charges for putting her son in that position.








						Anatomy of a Catastrophe - Bullshido
					

There are a lot of opinions floating around about Kyle Rittenhouse and his actions. Normally when we have an emotionally charged series of events like those surrounding young Mister Rittenhouse, the first and most immediate of these opinions can be quickly parsed into a few easy categories.




					www.bullshido.net


----------



## ouimetnick

jkcerda said:


> fucking spot on , that's 3 bags of oreos and one bag of mothers cookies you guys owe me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anatomy of a Catastrophe | Bullshido
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bullshido.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pay up bitches.......... please read the whole damn article.




Why does the RADICAL right have a fetish and obsession with pointing out a victim's history? I don't care that a guy was a previously convicted sex offender, doesn't give Kyle the right to shoot him. I don't care that George Floyd had a criminal past, it's not relevant and doesn't excuse the cop kneeling on his neck until he died especially over $20 bill. I don't care that Jacob Black had a warrant for his arrest, it doesn't justify 7 bullet holes in his back.

To be clear, the prior criminal convictions are relevant in court, but not when making an arrest. The job of the police is to enforce the law, not give a person with prior conviction(s) different treatment. The police are supposed to enforce the law, arrest and charge, NOT become the jury and executioner... So I'm baffled on how a person's past is relevant here.

I think we can agree that pedophiles can jump into the nearest fire though.


----------



## SuperMatt

Facebook allows armed gangs to organize, and does nothing to stop it. They said they wanted to kill protesters in Kenosha.









						Facebook Said It Removed A Militia Event Page Threatening Violence In Kenosha. It Didn’t.
					

Facebook said it removed a militia event associated with the shooting of three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It didn't. Here's what really happened, and why it could happen again.




					www.buzzfeednews.com
				




Facebook still didn't intervene - the owner of the group took it down apparently. Facebook is a cancer and it's not worth saving. Everybody should cancel their accounts if they have them - immediately.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> Facebook allows armed gangs to organize, and does nothing to stop it. They said they wanted to kill protesters in Kenosha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facebook Said It Removed A Militia Event Page Threatening Violence In Kenosha. It Didn’t.
> 
> 
> Facebook said it removed a militia event associated with the shooting of three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It didn't. Here's what really happened, and why it could happen again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.buzzfeednews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facebook still didn't intervene - the owner of the group took it down apparently. Facebook is a cancer and it's not worth saving. Everybody should cancel their accounts if they have them - immediately.



Lately they've been busting these right wing pages left and right so I'm a bit surprised they let this slide TBH. They have their work cutout for them that's for sure, these people are everywhere trying to stir trouble and suppress voting.


----------



## SuperMatt

ericgtr12 said:


> Lately they've been busting these right wing pages left and right so I'm a bit surprised they let this slide TBH. They have their work cutout for them that's for sure, these people are everywhere trying to stir trouble and suppress voting.




They don't care about the actual problem. They care about bad PR. They just swat a few flies here and there when people complain, but they leave in place the massive pile of poop that attracts all the flies in the first place.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1304514941194514432/


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1304514941194514432/



TBF Trump Jr is purified trash.


----------



## JayMysteri0

PearsonX said:


> TBF Trump Jr is purified trash.



To meet the min req for a post in MR,  I had to add, "I wonder what's different about these two incidents?  Oh yeah, the Central Park Five didn't actually kill anyone. That's IT."


----------



## Eric

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1304514941194514432/



They way Trump went after this was beyond belief and when all were exonerated he admitted to no wrong doing. He showed his true self a long time ago and people in this country still followed and voted for him. Says more about this country than it does Trump.


----------



## User.45

ericgtr12 said:


> They way Trump went after this was beyond belief and when all were exonerated he admitted to no wrong doing. He showed his true self a long time ago and people in this country still followed and voted for him. Says more about this country than it does Trump.



B-b-but nobody had ever been treated as badly as he has been!!!@@$@!!!! Not even Lincoln.


----------



## Alli

PearsonX said:


> TBF Trump Jr is purified trash.




You’re being far too kind.


----------



## User.45

Alli said:


> You’re being far too kind.



self-censored... Did you guys watch his Axios interview?


----------



## Alli

PearsonX said:


> self-censored... Did you guys watch his Axios interview?




I try to be absent if he’s speaking.


----------



## Eric

Alli said:


> I try to be absent if he’s speaking.



I just can't take watching him anymore, regardless of the topic. He's in the news every minute of every day, the overexposure is real.


----------



## User.45

ericgtr12 said:


> I just can't take watching him anymore, regardless of the topic. He's in the news every minute of every day, the overexposure is real.



Again he's trash, but there's also a lot of irony there. You can smell a great deal of desperation for paternal approval, a hint of psychostimulants (I've spent half the interview trying to measure his pupils), and a lot of insecurity overcorrected by overinflated sense of self-importance backed by no substance (not by legal ones at least...).


----------



## SuperMatt

The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t want the people killed to be referred to as “victims” because it’s a loaded word. He is ok with them being referred to as “arsonists,” “looters,” or “rioters” though. Oh, those aren’t loaded words?

Apparently, disallowing the word “victim” has become commonplace in court (not sure why - people that die in car accidents are called victims too). But allowing blatant smearing of the victims (yes I will say it) while disallowing the word “victim” - that seems very biased towards the defense.









						Judge in Rittenhouse trial who won't allow the word "victims" is in the spotlight
					

While Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder may set boundaries for the language in his court, his decision sets the stage for more scrutiny, legal experts say.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t want the people killed to be referred to as “victims” because it’s a loaded word. He is ok with them being referred to as “arsonists,” “looters,” or “rioters” though. Oh, those aren’t loaded words?
> 
> Apparently, disallowing the word “victim” has become commonplace in court (not sure why - people that die in car accidents are called victims too). But allowing blatant smearing of the victims (yes I will say it) while disallowing the word “victim” - that seems very biased towards the defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judge in Rittenhouse trial who won't allow the word "victims" is in the spotlight
> 
> 
> While Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder may set boundaries for the language in his court, his decision sets the stage for more scrutiny, legal experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com



It's so absurd, I've shown it to my EU conservative friend who went to law school and he had the same question. What is the right terminology? Bullet recipient? Also, if we are going to label everybody the same for being out on the streets after curfew, that means the Rittenhouse starting position is armed rioter who is still alive, unlike the "recipients of his bullets". There are things to argue about, but the fact that Rittenhouse is old enough to understand the that there would be no trial if he did not with transport his weapon across 2 state lines as a minor to be out after curfew to riot.


----------



## GermanSuplex

The judge is clearly a terrible… judge. This is so clearly biased it’s almost absurd.

The kid will probably get off, being another George Zimmerman-like “hero” to the right. The kid is already embracing his “celebrity” and white supremacist friends.

How many people are serving life sentences for less egregious acts? It’s ok to arm yourself and start shit with people now? God help us.


----------



## Eric

GermanSuplex said:


> The judge is clearly a terrible… judge. This is so clearly biased it’s almost absurd.
> 
> The kid will probably get off, being another George Zimmerman-like “hero” to the right. The kid is already embracing his “celebrity” and white supremacist friends.
> 
> How many people are serving life sentences for less egregious acts? It’s ok to arm yourself and start shit with people now? God help us.



At least it's making the news everywhere, even local news and hopefully to the ears of potential jurors, the bias here is glaring. Fox News must have their pants down to their ankles over this judge.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Deleted member 215

This trial will be the right's revenge for the conviction of Derek Chauvin.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Ooh!  So it is a subjective thing. 



> Ghislaine Maxwell prosecutors can call accusers ‘victims’, judge rules
> 
> 
> Defense team had requested word be banned during New York trial this month
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com





> Prosecutors in Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking case will be permitted to use the words “victim” and “minor” in referencing accusers during her forthcoming trial in federal court in New York, it was ruled on Monday.
> 
> Judge Alison Nathan’s decision permitting the use of “victim” stemmed from a challenge by Maxwell’s defense team, which had requested that the word be barred from the trial, due to begin in Manhattan this month.
> 
> Nathan said: “Precluding the word is both unnecessary and impractical.”
> 
> “It is appropriate to use the terms as representative of its litigation position,” Nathan said of the prosecution.




I wonder why the Rittenhouse judge won't allow the word to be used?


----------



## Joe

It's because the Trump cult has trickled to educated people like judges and CEOs. You think it's just rednecks that are brainwashed? 

This country is fucked. The right is getting more and more crazy by the day.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

JayMysteri0 said:


> Ooh!  So it is a subjective thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why the Rittenhouse judge won't allow the word to be used?




I think the judge should insist they be called bullet sponges, just to keep it apolitical.


----------



## Eric

To be fair, Fox News has a lot invested into this by both promoting funding for his defense and having their own people donate as well. Maybe after he walks they'll give him a show.   All I can say is after George Zimmerman I have very little faith in this system, it's geared towards racial hatred and supporting vigilantism.


----------



## Renzatic

Eric said:


> All I can say is after George Zimmerman I have very little faith in this system, it's geared towards racial hatred and supporting vigilantism.




To be fair to our justice system, Zimmerman's case was badly handled by the prosecution. Given the evidence they had on hand, they should've pushed for Voluntary Manslaughter.


----------



## JayMysteri0

I think it's a misunderstanding of how our justice system works, it's early ties to vigilantism and what the police originally were for.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> To be fair, Fox News has a lot invested into this by both promoting funding for his defense and having their own people donate as well.




To counter this and the judge he should have to show up in court in black face every day.  Doesn't mean he's guilty and I'm sure the jury won't read anything into it.  It's just correcting the scale a bit from how far the right put their thumb on it.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Ooh!  So it is a subjective thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why the Rittenhouse judge won't allow the word to be used?



I don’t know if I mentioned this before, but we call people who died in natural disasters “victims” as well. That doesn’t imply a crime... so it’s just nonsense that this judge plays language police in this way. That being said, this judge has a history of blocking the term for all cases, so it doesn’t seem like he’s necessarily favoring Rittenhouse. But then, saying he would allow “arsonist” or “rioter” pretty much ruins any excuse I might be able to give the guy.


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> To be fair to our justice system, Zimmerman's case was badly handled by the prosecution. Given the evidence they had on hand, they should've pushed for Voluntary Manslaughter.



It is the prosecution that is perhaps the biggest problem in our justice system. Look no further than Kentucky and Breonna Taylor for a recent example of prosecutors doing everything they can to PREVENT criminal cops from being held responsible. Look at the prosecutor who let Jeffrey Epstein off with a slap on the wrist so he could go molest more kids before being caught again... and on and on.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Good point by the prosecutors, and I think some of us brought this up on MacRumors last year; even with the unrest in Kenosha, this kid is the only one who killed people. We need to hold people who interject themselves into certain situations accountable.


----------



## User.45

GermanSuplex said:


> Good point by the prosecutors, and I think some of us brought this up on MacRumors last year; even with the unrest in Kenosha, this kid is the only one who killed people. We need to hold people who interject themselves into certain situations accountable.



Exactly. Also, culture of personal responsibility. If you take a gun to a heated situation and people die as a result, you should take responsibility for it. Even if the acute circumstances weren't straight forward, the fact that nobody would have been killed if he 1) didn't break the curfew just like the "rioters" and 2) didn't bring an oversized loaded gun to a situation are very easy to judge.



Eric said:


> To be fair, Fox News has a lot invested into this by both promoting funding for his defense and having their own people donate as well. Maybe after he walks they'll give him a show.   All I can say is after George Zimmerman I have very little faith in this system, it's geared towards racial hatred and supporting >>*WHITE*<< vigilantism.



FTFY. The video of the Black guy who open carried in Texas was very informative about the color coding of vigilantism in America.




TBL said:


> This trial will be the right's revenge for the conviction of Derek Chauvin.



I'm afraid so too.


----------



## Joe

He's going to get away with it.


----------



## rdrr

Didn't understand this basic fact.  They cannot call the people in which he murdered "victims", but they can call them looters, rioters, arsonist without a conviction of that crime?


----------



## GermanSuplex

rdrr said:


> Didn't understand this basic fact. They cannot call the people in which he murdered "victims", but they can call them looters, rioters, arsonist without a conviction of that crime?




It’s a blatantly biased decision by the judge. I’d be curious to learn more about this judge based on how incredibly contradictory those two issues are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

GermanSuplex said:


> It’s a blatantly biased decision by the judge. I’d be curious to learn more about this judge based on how incredibly contradictory those two issues are.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Well, at least he didn't insist the defendant be referred to as the wrongly accused patriot.

BTW,  Thanks to Trumpkins, I'm sure I'm not the only one who will probably have a reflexive negative feeling every time I hear "patriot" for the rest of my life.  Does that mean I will have my white guy American membership rescinded?


----------



## JayMysteri0

I'm somewhat amazed at the level of indifference that's begun to rise in me, thanks to my fellow Americans

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1455963582441529348/


> Kyle Rittenhouse's trial opens with his lawyer saying the N-word twice in court
> 
> 
> A lawyer for Rittenhouse said the N-word twice in his opening statement while quoting Joseph Rosenbaum, whose death his client is charged in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com




Now, I'm more amazed when we aren't a more shitty group of people.

Meanwhile in the Ahmaud Arbery case they selected a jury of 11 people White.  It does say a "jury of one's peers".


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> I'm somewhat amazed at the level of indifference that's begun to rise in me, thanks to my fellow Americans
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1455963582441529348/
> 
> 
> Now, I'm more amazed when we aren't a more shitty group of people.
> 
> Meanwhile in the Ahmaud Arbery case they selected a jury of 11 people White.  It does say a "jury of one's peers".



I heard about the Arbery case this morning on the radio. If the over 90% white jury fails to convict, will the prosecution attempt to re-try the case because of the racial bias present in the jury selection (which the judge acknowledged but STILL ALLOWED)? Or will they be happy to let these (alleged) murderers go free? Considering how hard it was to get them to prosecute the case in the first place, I wouldn’t be surprised if they do a half-assed job, and let these guys walk, and then never try again.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> I'm somewhat amazed at the level of indifference that's begun to rise in me, thanks to my fellow Americans
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1455963582441529348/
> 
> 
> Now, I'm more amazed when we aren't a more shitty group of people.
> 
> Meanwhile in the Ahmaud Arbery case they selected a jury of 11 people White.  It does say a "jury of one's peers".




Oh that’s only part of it... did you see one of the jurors made a joke about the Jacob Blake shooting?



> "'Why did the Kenosha police shoot Jacob Blake seven times? Because they ran out of bullets.'"




And the (former) juror didn’t see the problem with telling this joke to a deputy during the trial. Somehow this got back to the judge and the juror was sent home (over the objections of the defense of course). But there’s a 0% chance that he was the only one on the jury with that mentality.

Yep, they've got plenty of racists in Wisconsin. If this is the prevailing attitude around there, no wonder the cop who shot Blake didn’t even face trial.

Judge with a clear bias towards the defendant, racist jurors, defense lawyers breaking the rules because they know they’re on TV...

It looks like Kyle is going to get away with (alleged) murder.


----------



## Thomas Veil

SuperMatt said:


> … If the over 90% white jury fails to convict, will the prosecution attempt to re-try the case because of the racial bias present in the jury selection (which the judge acknowledged but STILL ALLOWED)? …



Such a thing would be problematical because of the Fifth Amendment, the double jeopardy clause.

The only way that works is if by “fail to convict” you mean enough jurors with a conscience force a hung jury, in which case a mistrial is declared and we start from scratch. Which, given the way this looks, is devoutly to be wished.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> Oh that’s only part of it... did you see one of the jurors made a joke about the Jacob Blake shooting?
> 
> 
> 
> And the (former) juror didn’t see the problem with telling this joke to a deputy during the trial. Somehow this got back to the judge and the juror was sent home (over the objections of the defense of course). But there’s a 0% chance that he was the only one on the jury with that mentality.
> 
> Yep, they've got plenty of racists in Wisconsin. If this is the prevailing attitude around there, no wonder the cop who shot Blake didn’t even face trial.
> 
> Judge with a clear bias towards the defendant, racist jurors, defense lawyers breaking the rules because they know they’re on TV...
> 
> It looks like Kyle is going to get away with (alleged) murder.



He'll get manslaughter charges at best, but will end up with weapons violations. If he gets out of this relatively unscathed, we'll see him back in court years down the line. This is a formative event, and well, the shaping a kid's personality gets from all of this is not a good one...


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1456336344393781251/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I don't know how often this happens, but it's pretty astonishing how biased this judge is blatantly proving to be.  It's like he can't help himself.  Maybe he'll insist that he be allowed to also be the jury foreman.  You know, just to be there to make sure they are following his biased instructions and overrule any viewpoint that is different from his.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I don't know how often this happens, but it's pretty astonishing how biased this judge is blatantly proving to be.  It's like he can't help himself.  Maybe he'll insist that he be allowed to also be the jury foreman.  You know, just to be there to make sure they are following his biased instructions and overrule any viewpoint that is different from his.



The juror that made the offensive Jacob Blake joke probably heard it from the judge.


----------



## Pumbaa

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I don't know how often this happens, but it's pretty astonishing how biased this judge is blatantly proving to be.  It's like he can't help himself.  Maybe he'll insist that he be allowed to also be the jury foreman.  You know, just to be there to make sure they are following his biased instructions and overrule any viewpoint that is different from his.



Giving “jury nullification” a new meaning… >.<


----------



## yaxomoxay

After today, no way that Mr. Rittenhouse will be convicted of any felony. He remains an idiot, but the case for self-defense was served on a silver plate by the Prosecutor himself. Of note, the defense case hasn’t started yet.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I don't know how often this happens, but it's pretty astonishing how biased this judge is blatantly proving to be.  It's like he can't help himself.  Maybe he'll insist that he be allowed to also be the jury foreman.  You know, just to be there to make sure they are following his biased instructions and overrule any viewpoint that is different from his.




Shades of the late Judge Julius Jennings Hoffman in the nearly year-long spring 1969-70 trial of the Chicago 7.   An amazing piece of work.  In that trial though the bias was against the defense and their counsel and Hoffman was perfectly content to let that hang out.    The appeals courts eventually noted his openly derisive attitude towards defense and failure to appraise juror bias and also overturned all his sentencings.   

 One wonders about this judge in the Rittenhouse case.  All I've really read about him is that he's the longest serving circuit judge in Wisconsin, don't really have a sense of what any bar associations may have thought of him.

I know with Hoffman it came out that something over 75% of the Chi Bar Association had categorized him as "unqualified"... yet there he was on the bench helping make a circus of the Chicago 7 trial and that's before any nods to the defendants for some antics of their own.  What a world.  How fragile the rule of law sometimes.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> After today, no way that Mr. Rittenhouse will be convicted of any felony. He remains an idiot, but the case for self-defense was served on a silver plate by the Prosecutor himself. Of note, the defense case hasn’t started yet.



This case will create the precedent that will take us closer to a civil war. Rittenhouse will get a slap on the wrist, which will encourage more assholes to take the largest fucking gun they can find to a protest and get into altercations. The testimony made front page on reddit (didn’t watch the video, it’s late) but saw the people are already cheering.

 So here we are, people going to protests armed and people get excited if the “right people” get hurt in the process.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> This case will create the precedent that will take us closer to a civil war. Rittenhouse will get a slap on the wrist, which will encourage more assholes to take the largest fucking gun they can find to a protest and get into altercations. The testimony made front page on reddit (didn’t watch the video, it’s late) but saw the people are already cheering.
> 
> So here we are, people going to protests armed and people get excited if the “right people” get hurt in the process.



Let’s not exaggerate. The reason he’ll get a slap on the wrist - at most -  is that the law is clear, and precedent already exists. The prosecution has absolutely no way to build a case and it shows.  Speaking of Reddit, I checked a couple of subs about jurisprudence, and the “verdict” is almost unanimous that Mr Rittenhouse is in the right, legally speaking (I don’t think he is, ethically speaking). Even the NYT reports the difficulties that the Prosecutor has in establishing that Mr Rittenhouse broke the law. Now, again, I can’t stand Mr. Rittenhouse, but by the many “highlights” I’ve watched it’s evident that he didn’t break any law. 

One thing that interests me, is that during the trial it transpired that the DA office didn’t allow a warrant because they feared that the police search would find exculpatory evidence in favor of Mr Rittenhouse. My understanding is that this might be illegal, but I am not 100% sure.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> Let’s not exaggerate. The reason he’ll get a slap on the wrist - at most -  is that the law is clear, and precedent already exists. The prosecution has absolutely no way to build a case and it shows.  Speaking of Reddit, I checked a couple of subs about jurisprudence, and the “verdict” is almost unanimous that Mr Rittenhouse is in the right, legally speaking (I don’t think he is, ethically speaking). Even the NYT reports the difficulties that the Prosecutor has in establishing that Mr Rittenhouse broke the law. Now, again, I can’t stand Mr. Rittenhouse, but by the many “highlights” I’ve watched it’s evident that he didn’t break any law.
> 
> One thing that interests me, is that during the trial it transpired that the DA office didn’t allow a warrant because they feared that the police search would find exculpatory evidence in favor of Mr Rittenhouse. My understanding is that this might be illegal, but I am not 100% sure.



This is not an exaggeration.
1. Trial is not over. There were eyewitness reports posted in local media claiming that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at people prior to these events. So if we cared about the actual case, maybe not Reddit Lawyers should be the standard. I personally want to learn if those reports were true. 
2. If you zoom out and think about the message the average gun nut will take away from this is: You can get away with murder as long as you created the situation where self defense can be claimed. Ironically the term chip on his shoulder comes from this, a person having a chip on their shoulder and if they bump into someone and the chip falls, they’ll start a fight.

Do you have a law degree, BTW or are you another Reddit lawyer?


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> This is not an exaggeration.
> 1. Trial is not over. There were eyewitness reports posted in local media claiming that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at people prior to these events. So if we cared about the actual case, maybe not Reddit Lawyers should be the standard. I personally want to learn if those reports were true.



It doesn’t seem that the witnesses corroborated that Mr Rittenhouse was an instigator. And here we’re talking about prosecution witnesses. Even with the first shooting, by the dumpster, everything - including FBI drone footage - points to Mr Rittenhouse being first threatened and the attacked. You get a very good point: the trial is not over, therefore mine is obviously just an opinion. Personally I was hoping he’d get some manslaughter charges for the first shooting, but from what I see even that will be very hard at this point. 



P_X said:


> 2. If you zoom out and think about the message the average gun nut will take away from this is: You can get away with murder as long as you created the situation where self defense can be claimed. Ironically the term chip on his shoulder comes from this, a person having a chip on their shoulder and if they bump into someone and the chip falls, they’ll start a fight.



I don’t totally disagree with this, but people bringing guns and rifles at a protest (on either side, if there is a side), isn’t new. Even yesterday’s witness admitted not only to having a concealed handgun, but even having pointed it. However, I think you will concur that the trial is not - and shouldn’t be - about “what happens if the accused gets convicted / acquitted but about the law. 



P_X said:


> Do you have a law degree, BTW or are you another Reddit lawyer?



Reddit lawyer? I am not that low! My degree comes from decades of practicing law on random online forums, often in conversations in which most participants base their opinions on newspaper titles only or, in the best case, tweets.


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> This is not an exaggeration.
> 
> 2. If you zoom out and think about the message the average gun nut will take away from this is: You can get away with murder as long as you created the situation where self defense can be claimed. Ironically the term chip on his shoulder comes from this, a person having a chip on their shoulder and if they bump into someone and the chip falls, they’ll start a fight.




As the resident "gun nut", there is no way I would go and create, or even seek out, a situation like that.  It could just as easily been Kyle Rittenhouse laying in the morgue.

Not all of us sit around wondering how we can get away with shooting someone.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Herdfan said:


> As the resident "gun nut", there is no way I would go and create, or even seek out, a situation like that.  It could just as easily been Kyle Rittenhouse laying in the morgue.
> 
> Not all of us sit around wondering how we can get away with shooting someone.



I am not clear in one thing, and I haven’t seen any trial footage about it. Some claim that Rittenhouse just went there and asked for a firearm and got it. Others are saying that at the trial it was disclosed that during the morning he was helping cleaning the place and that he was asked (by the shady car dealers?) to stay there and that he then was given a weapon. Any idea which is which?


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Let’s not exaggerate. The reason he’ll get a slap on the wrist - at most -  is that the law is clear, and precedent already exists. The prosecution has absolutely no way to build a case and it shows.  Speaking of Reddit, I checked a couple of subs about jurisprudence, and the “verdict” is almost unanimous that Mr Rittenhouse is in the right, legally speaking (I don’t think he is, ethically speaking). Even the NYT reports the difficulties that the Prosecutor has in establishing that Mr Rittenhouse broke the law. Now, again, I can’t stand Mr. Rittenhouse, but by the many “highlights” I’ve watched it’s evident that he didn’t break any law.
> 
> One thing that interests me, is that during the trial it transpired that the DA office didn’t allow a warrant because they feared that the police search would find exculpatory evidence in favor of Mr Rittenhouse. My understanding is that this might be illegal, but I am not 100% sure.



Well then, it’s decided. The defense can rest, send the jury to deliberation, which should take 30 seconds, and he can be acquitted immediately.

Here’s a question I wonder about. Does one have a legal right to defend oneself with a weapon one is not legally allowed to possess?

I am not saying I believe these shootings qualify as self-defense, because running around in a mob with an assault weapon is not the action of somebody worried about their personal safety to begin with. Point an illegally-possessed gun at random people, then when they try to take your gun away, you shoot them… self defense? I don’t agree with that.

Don’t forget: the murderers of Ahmaud Arbery also are claiming self defense. It is perhaps sometimes a true defense, but when one is caught on camera shooting somebody, it is most likely their only defense available in court. The last-resort defense of an alleged killer caught on video.


----------



## Herdfan

yaxomoxay said:


> I am not clear in one thing, and I haven’t seen any trial footage about it. Some claim that Rittenhouse just went there and asked for a firearm and got it. Others are saying that at the trial it was disclosed that during the morning he was helping cleaning the place and that he was asked (by the shady car dealers?) to stay there and that he then was given a weapon. Any idea which is which?




As far as I know, it was his gun.  The first prosecution witness was his friend who bought it for him.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> Here’s a question I wonder about. Does one have a legal right to defend oneself with a weapon one is not legally allowed to possess?



Yes, absolutely. No citizen has a duty to die or be victimized. Example: a lady steals a gun from a car. While walking home two men try to rape her. She can shoot them. She might be charged for unlawful possession, but certainly no homicide charge (another example is a very young kid shooting someone breaking in his house or committing violence on a family member).



SuperMatt said:


> . Point an illegally-possessed gun at random people, then when they try to take your gun away, you shoot them… self defense? I don’t agree with that.




From what I’ve seen, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, it seems that Mr Rittenhouse didn’t point the gun until chased down by the first individual, which then lounged for the weapon after yelling “I am going to kill you”. 



SuperMatt said:


> Don’t forget: the murderers of Ahmaud Arbery also are claiming self defense. It is perhaps sometimes a true defense, but when one is caught on camera shooting somebody, it is most likely their only defense available in court. The last-resort defense of an alleged killer caught on video.



I am not following that one, from what I’ve seen about it, I find hard to believe that the self defense argument will stand.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Herdfan said:


> As far as I know, it was his gun.  The first prosecution witness was his friend who bought it for him.



So who legally owns it? Mr Rittenhouse or his friend?


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> So who legally owns it? Mr Rittenhouse or his friend?




It sounds like his friend officially owned the gun, and was holding it for Rittenhouse until he came of age.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Yes, absolutely



I don’t think there’s anything absolute about it. What if you stole somebody’s gun, and they try to get it back, you fear they are going to hurt you in the process, and you shoot them? You could say you feared for your life as the victim of your robbery attempted to hurt you to get the gun back. I doubt a jury would see it that way… but who knows?

Each situation is different. IMHO, speaking in absolutes is not conducive to a discussion of the topic, especially when it comes to the decision of 12 human beings listening to evidence with different lawyers, witnesses, and judges every single time.

BTW - there were definitely reports that Rittenhouse was pointing the gun in unsafe directions on that night. And he was illegally in possession of it. I find it odd that adults trying to take a gun away from an out-of-control teenager are considered to be attackers in this scenario.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> So who legally owns it? Mr Rittenhouse or his friend?



At the age of 17, it’s not *legal* for Kyle to own it, period. There’s your answer.


----------



## Renzatic

SuperMatt said:


> I find it odd that adults trying to take a gun away from an out-of-control teenager are considered to be attackers in this scenario.




The problem with this case is that the prosecution is doing a poor job of showing he was out of control.

Was he a minor who had brought a weapon he wasn't legally allowed to own across state lines to join in on a highly charged situation for which he had neither the professional training nor emotional maturity to deal with?

...well yeah, but he may still have justifiable cause to shoot and kill people if all he was doing was minding his own business!


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> I don’t think there’s anything absolute about it. What if you stole somebody’s gun, and they try to get it back, you fear they are going to hurt you in the process, and you shoot them?



That’s a different case and has little to do with the question I answered. The legality of the ownership of the weapon doesn’t limit the right to self defense, that’s my point. In the case you described above - which is Mr Rittenhouse defense on the first shooting - the owner is not the initiator of the act of violence, hence the self defense. That is, the legality of the possession is not the determinant factor.




SuperMatt said:


> You could say you feared for your life as the victim of your robbery attempted to hurt you to get the gun back. I doubt a jury would see it that way… but who knows?



Again, in the commission of a violent crime in which you’re the victim, you can defend yourself. So if someone is robbing a bank, you have the right to defend yourself.



SuperMatt said:


> Each situation is different.



Well, yes.


SuperMatt said:


> IMHO, speaking in absolutes is not conducive to a discussion of the topic,




It’s not an absolute, it’s just a fact. Ownership of a gun, knife, bazooka doesn’t limit the rights of self defense. The circumstances and context of the case might. 


SuperMatt said:


> especially when it comes to the decision of 12 human beings listening to evidence with different lawyers, witnesses, and judges every single time.




Yes but that’s beside my point.


SuperMatt said:


> BTW - there were definitely reports that Rittenhouse was pointing the gun in unsafe directions on that night. And he was illegally in possession of it. I find it odd that adults trying to take a gun away from an out-of-control teenager are considered to be attackers in this scenario.



Reports maybe, anyone called by the prosecutor stated so? Because that’s what matters. Honest question because I haven’t heard it but, admittedly I haven’t listened to the whole thing.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> At the age of 17, it’s not *legal* for Kyle to own it, period. There’s your answer.



So the owner was 18+ as Mr. Rittenhouse was not the owner. 

Now the question is: is it legal in Wisconsin to carry a firearm owned by an adult when an adult is present?
If not, that’s probably a misdemeanor.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> I don’t think there’s anything absolute about it. What if you stole somebody’s gun, and they try to get it back, you fear they are going to hurt you in the process, and you shoot them? You could say you feared for your life as the victim of your robbery attempted to hurt you to get the gun back. I doubt a jury would see it that way… but who knows?



In America, it would boil down to skin color or perceived racial background as evidenced by the data you posted on distribution of self-defense vs. murder/manslaughter charges per race.



yaxomoxay said:


> It doesn’t seem that the witnesses corroborated that Mr Rittenhouse was an instigator. And here we’re talking about prosecution witnesses. Even with the first shooting, by the dumpster, everything - including FBI drone footage - points to Mr Rittenhouse being first threatened and the attacked. You get a very good point: the trial is not over, therefore mine is obviously just an opinion. Personally I was hoping he’d get some manslaughter charges for the first shooting, but from what I see even that will be very hard at this point.



I don't really have time to follow the trial realtime, i'll catch up on it once all the evidence is presented. Beyond that it's just prejudice... I shared my opinion above about the outcome and the effect. This issue with this is stand your ground states push people to escalate violence to homicide and reward white people and punish black people for committing avoidable homicides (statistics). So if this case will create a sort of stand-your-ground-like precedent, the societal impact will be expectedly the same.



yaxomoxay said:


> I don’t totally disagree with this, but people bringing guns and rifles at a protest (on either side, if there is a side), isn’t new. Even yesterday’s witness admitted not only to having a concealed handgun, but even having pointed it. However, I think you will concur that the trial is not - and shouldn’t be - about “what happens if the accused gets convicted / acquitted but about the law.



I personally would want *anybody* who pulled their guns out punished. I'll emphasize, that flashing an AR15 half the size of Rittenhouse in a heated situation like this should be illegal too and it might have actually been. Wikipedia was edited to suggest that the _Weapons effect_ (people's behavior at the sight of a firearm changes for the more aggressive) is not real. Of course it's real and we should not reward people who escalate violence.



yaxomoxay said:


> Reddit lawyer? I am not that low! My degree comes from decades of practicing law on random online forums, often in conversations in which most participants base their opinions on newspaper titles only or, in the best case, tweets.



I have a very specific grievance about "reddit experts." Front page favors early posts over high-quality posts, so the first X-hundred posts will come from those who sort by new and if expertise comes with a busy professional life, well you will just not get expert opinion there, unless it's an AMA.

 I see this about medical issues all the time. There's 2 specific videos on esoteric treatments of "parkinson's" disease that popped up on the Front Page about 2-3x each and I was only able to spot a single neurologist commenting, buried deep in one of the comment sections. Now the actual videos are on the border of ridiculous BS but so that I don't stigmatize people I always discuss them with a friend who is a movement disorders expert trained at top institutions before posting my opinion on the video. You can guess how many people sees that. So it's a great example of how Reddit gives the impression of collective consciousness being at the works, when it really just blind leading the blind.




yaxomoxay said:


> Now, again, I can’t stand Mr. Rittenhouse, *but by the many “highlights” I’ve watched it’s evident that he didn’t break any law.*



This takes me to how much I admire your familiarity with federal and wisconsin law. I still struggle with the questions, whether, could he possess a gun in Indiana? Could he legally carry it across state lines? Could he possess the gun in Wisconsin? Could he carry it out in the open in Wisconsin? Did he have any prior altercation prior to the one that led to the shooting? Did he have a choice alternative to pulling the trigger the first time? What about the second time?


----------



## Renzatic

P_X said:


> This takes me to how much I admire your familiarity with federal and wisconsin law. I still struggle with the questions, whether, could he possess a gun in Indiana? Could he legally carry it across state lines? Could he possess the gun in Wisconsin? Could he carry it out in the open in Wisconsin? Did he have any prior altercation prior to the one that led to the shooting? Did he have a choice alternative to pulling the trigger the first time? What about the second time?




The law in general tends to boil these situations down to bare basic points of what happened in the heat of the moment. In this situation, did he instigate the encounter that lead to the deaths of two people? If yes, he's guilty of murder. If no, then it's self defense.

Yeah, he did carry a weapon he isn't legally allowed to own across state lines to participate in some culture war skirmishes, and was likely hoping for an altercation or two. But what if, despite all this prior evidence of intent, he did find himself in a situation where he was minding his own business, only to be jumped by a group of people who didn't have his best interests in mind? In that situation, he would have the right to self defense, since his mere presence alone isn't enough of an instigating factor to charge him with murder or manslaughter.

The prosecution has to prove that he started the encounter, that his actions, not his presence, escalated the situation. After all, he wasn't the only person who wasn't allowed out on that street that night. If they can't prove that, then he walks.

...and we're left dealing with the fallout.


----------



## User.45

Renzatic said:


> The law in general tends to boil these situations down to bare basic points of what happened in the heat of the moment. In this situation, did he instigate the encounter that lead to the deaths of two people? If yes, he's guilty of murder. If no, then it's self defense.
> 
> Yeah, he did carry a weapon he isn't legally allowed to own across state lines to participate in some culture war skirmishes, and was likely hoping for an altercation or two. But what if, despite all this prior evidence of intent, he did find himself in a situation where he was minding his own business, only to be jumped by a group of people who didn't have his best interests in mind? In that situation, he would have the right to self defense, since his mere presence alone isn't enough of an instigating factor to charge him with murder or manslaughter.
> 
> The prosecution has to prove that he started the encounter, that his actions, not his presence, escalated the situation. After all, he wasn't the only person who wasn't allowed out on that street that night. If they can't prove that, then he walks.
> 
> ...and we're left dealing with the fallout.



Agree with all of these points. My reaction was to the explicit statement that its is “evident that KR did not break any law”.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> I personally would want *anybody* who pulled their guns out punished.




Ok, but you would agree that what the laws should’ve been is not part of the trial about Mr Rittenhouse culpability.  



P_X said:


> I'll emphasize, that flashing an AR15 half the size of Rittenhouse in a heated situation like this should be illegal too and it might have actually been.



I am not sure, but I have the feeling that the curfew “shields” Mr Rittenhouse, at least to a point. The protest was not an organized protest, with all the requirements of an organized event. In other words, independently on us agreeing or not with the protest, they should’ve not been there. The same way works for Rittenhouse. He should’ve not been there. The result is that neither party had a valid claim on “I can walk these streets”, which makes being there a sort of provocative act by default. Disparate violence and chaos made thing much worse. Idiocy by Rittenhouse & company made thing much much worse.



P_X said:


> I have a very specific grievance about "reddit experts." Front page favors early posts over high-quality posts, so the first X-hundred posts will come from those who sort by new and if expertise comes with a busy professional life, well you will just not get expert opinion there, unless it's an AMA.




In all seriousness, I do too. But let’s face it, it’s an interesting place to get some ideas and when 99% on multiple side agree on one thing, it might have a point (“might” be the operative word).



P_X said:


> I see this about medical issues all the time. There's 2 specific videos on esoteric treatments of "parkinson's" disease that popped up on the Front Page about 2-3x each and I was only able to spot a single neurologist commenting, buried deep in one of the comment sections. Now the actual videos are on the border of ridiculous BS but so that I don't stigmatize people I always discuss them with a friend who is a movement disorders expert trained at top institutions before posting my opinion on the video. You can guess how many people sees that. So it's a great example of how Reddit gives the impression of collective consciousness being at the works, when it really just blind leading the blind.



I don’t disagree with any of the above.



P_X said:


> This takes me to how much I admire your familiarity with federal and wisconsin law.




To be honest, this type of sarcastic remarks make me chuckle but they can get frustrating. I wrote a post, and immediately two answers went into the “qualifications” subject. We’re on an anonymous forum. We’re sharing ideas. We’re discussing current events. We’re just talking the same way we’d talk to a few friends in front of a beer or coffee. There’s no need to be lawyers, or SME’s, to share ideas and opinions. That’s how people learn. Do we really have to preface all statements with “In my humble opinion”? Do we really have to be certified SME’s to say what we think?



P_X said:


> Could he legally carry it across state lines?




Probably not, but since it didn’t happen it’s a moot question.



P_X said:


> Could he possess the gun in Wisconsin?



As for ownership, my guess is not. As for carrying it, it’s a good question.


Did he have any prior altercation prior to the one that led to the shooting?

From what I have seen about the trial, it seems he didn’t.

 Did he have a choice alternative to pulling the trigger the first time? What about the second time?

We’ll find out soon I guess.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> Agree with all of these points. My reaction was to the explicit statement that its is “evident that KR did not break any law”.



Mind you, I specifically wrote that I was basing it on the highlights I saw. I never claimed to be in the know of the entire court case, quite the contrary.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, I can’t imagine a future for this kid where he’ll be a beacon for bringing different sides together. He’s probably already been invited to be an honored member of every right-wing extremist group and if Trump gets a second term he’ll probably give him some kind of award.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Regardless of the outcome of the trial, I can’t imagine a future for this kid where he’ll be a beacon for bringing different sides together. He’s probably already been invited to be an honored member of every right-wing extremist group and if Trump gets a second term he’ll probably give him some kind of award.



My belief is that Mr Rittenhouse is a POS, a spoiled kid, and a bad person in general. My wish is that he, and people like him, could disappear forever.
He might be in the right as far as the law is concerned, but this doesn’t change that he is a POS.


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> The law in general tends to boil these situations down to bare basic points of what happened in the heat of the moment. In this situation, did he instigate the encounter that lead to the deaths of two people? If yes, he's guilty of murder. If no, then it's self defense.
> 
> Yeah, he did carry a weapon he isn't legally allowed to own across state lines to participate in some culture war skirmishes, and was likely hoping for an altercation or two. But what if, despite all this prior evidence of intent, he did find himself in a situation where he was minding his own business, only to be jumped by a group of people who didn't have his best interests in mind? In that situation, he would have the right to self defense, since his mere presence alone isn't enough of an instigating factor to charge him with murder or manslaughter.
> 
> The prosecution has to prove that he started the encounter, that his actions, not his presence, escalated the situation. After all, he wasn't the only person who wasn't allowed out on that street that night. If they can't prove that, then he walks.
> 
> ...and we're left dealing with the fallout.



It’s a bit disturbing to think that it all boils down to the heat of the moment. After all, I believe somebody mentioned a bazooka earlier in the thread. If somebody’s only defensive weapon is a bazooka and they carry it around everywhere, including powder-keg situations such as street protests.... let’s say they ARE threatened by a single person. They only have a bazooka, so they fire it at the threatening person who’s in a crowd and end up killing a hundred people. Are they innocent of the 99 collateral deaths?

They need to look at what happened leading up to the situation. If I keep poking a sleeping bear until it wakes up and instinctually claws at me, and then I shoot it... is the bear to blame? Clearly not. I think Rittenhouse’s prior actions, bringing a gun to a street protest, running around from place to place with it, claiming that he’s wanting a chance to defend against the mob... I don’t think he can use self-defense here.

The burden of proof is generally on the prosecution. HOWEVER, when the defense concedes that their client did in fact shoot people to death, now THEY have a burden of proof that it was self-defense.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> They need to look at what happened leading up to the situation. If I keep poking a sleeping bear until it wakes up and instinctually claws at me, and then I shoot it... is the bear to blame? Clearly not. I think Rittenhouse’s prior actions, bringing a gun to a street protest, running around from place to place with it, claiming that he’s wanting a chance to defend against the mob... I don’t think he can use self-defense here.




If he was black then 95% of the case would be about the buildup.  I'm going to predict it's going to be the polar opposite in this case.  Sounds like something out of the Trump playbook, unsurprisingly.  Don't look at the years....months....weeks....days before the action. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Renzatic

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> If he was black then 95% of the case would be about the buildup.  I'm going to predict it's going to be the polar opposite in this case.  Sounds like something out of the Trump playbook, unsurprisingly.  Don't look at the years....months....weeks....days before the action. Nothing to see here.




Didn't he claim he dreamed about killing people before the shooting occurred? Has that quip been used in the trial?


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> If he was black then 95% of the case would be about the buildup.  I'm going to predict it's going to be the polar opposite in this case.  Sounds like something out of the Trump playbook, unsurprisingly.  Don't look at the years....months....weeks....days before the action. Nothing to see here.



All the components are there.

White judge
Mostly white jury
George Zimmerman precedent
You CAN openly talk about shooting potestors, engage them, then murder them and fully get away with it so long as you yourself aren't black. Value placed on black lives is simply less than white lives. I don't care how anyone spins it, in the end that is the reality.

As for Kyle, he will walk and when he does it would be nice to see some real justice befall him out there somewhere. It will be one less racist piece of shit on the streets.


----------



## Renzatic

Eric said:


> As for Kyle, he will walk and when he does it would be nice to see some real justice befalls him out there somewhere. It will be one less racist piece of shit off the streets.




The way things are going, he'll probably end up being our next president.


----------



## Eric

Renzatic said:


> The way things are going, he'll probably end up being our next president.



At the very least he'll get his own show on Fox News, God only knows they're essentially responsible for funding his entire defense.


----------



## Renzatic

Eric said:


> At the very least he'll get his own show on Fox News, God only knows they're essentially responsible for funding his entire defense.




It sure is interesting living in the twilight of the republic, isn't it?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Renzatic said:


> The way things are going, he'll probably end up being our next president.




He's about 4 -5 sexual assault charges shy of becoming the RNC frontrunner.


----------



## Renzatic

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> He's about 4 -5 sexual assault charges shy of becoming the RNC frontrunner.




Give it time.


----------



## Joe

He looks like a loser kid. Even when he gets off he will fuck up his life in other ways.


----------



## Eric

Couldn't someone arm themselves with an assault rifle, stalk and find out where he'll be and then travel across state lines, start some shit and then shoot him when he pushes back? Seems to be a legit way of handling him. (just make sure you're white)


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> As for Kyle, he will walk and when he does it would be nice to see some real justice befall him out there somewhere. It will be one less racist piece of shit on the streets.






Eric said:


> Couldn't someone arm themselves with an assault rifle, stalk and find out where he'll be and then travel across state lines, start some shit and then shoot him when he pushes back? Seems to be a legit way of handling him.




I’m not really a fan of vigilante justice. I hope justice is served in this case, but working to change the justice system long-term is a much better choice IMHO.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> I’m not really a fan of vigilante justice. I hope justice is served in this case, but working to change the justice system long-term is a much better choice IMHO.



And I'm not really a fan of murdering protestors. As for the justice system, look at how little has changed with it in the last 100 years, this case and the Ahmaud Arbery are prefect examples of that. You call it vigilante justice, I call it justice. As long as these entitled white supremacists have no consequences they won't stop killing people.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> The burden of proof is generally on the prosecution. HOWEVER, when the defense concedes that their client did in fact shoot people to death, *now THEY have a burden of proof that it was self-defense.*




Which is made so much easier to prove when the prosecution witness admits pointing a gun at him.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Which is made so much easier to prove when the prosecution witness admits pointing a gun at him.




The one person who had a gun* didn’t die* of his injuries. He also pulled his gun AFTER Kyle already killed a man and he (and others) viewed Kyle as the aggressor in an active shooter situation. So, maybe Kyle won’t be convicted of shooting Grosskreutz. But what about the people he DID kill? They were NOT holding weapons. He shot 3 people, 2 fatally. Were all of 3 them mortal threats to him? That’s a pretty high bar to jump over for the defense, IMHO.

Did you intentionally leave out those other details? Shooting a person that survived is the least of Rittenhouse’s worries. If THAT shooting is justified, there are still the other 2 people to deal with, and if pulling a gun is the bar for returning fire, then he should be guilty of murder in the other 2 shootings.


----------



## Renzatic

SuperMatt said:


> He also pulled his gun AFTER Kyle already killed a man and he (and others) viewed Kyle as the aggressor in an active shooter situation.




This is a very important point here. He shot the first guy, and for reasons good or ill, fled the scene. As far as the group chasing him afterwards were concerned, he was running away after committing murder.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> let’s say they ARE threatened by a single person. They only have a bazooka, so they fire it at the threatening person who’s in a crowd and end up killing a hundred people. Are they innocent of the 99 collateral deaths?



Certainly clear of 1st degree murder. As for negligent manslaughter or manslaughter for the 99 innocents, it’s very possible if the other 99 weren’t doing anything threatening.  



SuperMatt said:


> They need to look at what happened leading up to the situation. If I keep poking a sleeping bear until it wakes up and instinctually claws at me, and then I shoot it... is the bear to blame? Clearly not.



With all due respect, many of those protesters including the individuals that got tragically shot weren’t sleeping. Even the prosecutor agreed that it was a night of chaos, following nights of chaos, that multiple weapons were present, and that the very first shot of the night wasn’t shot by idiot Rittenhouse. 



SuperMatt said:


> I think Rittenhouse’s prior actions, bringing a gun to a street protest,



At that point he had the same rights of any other individual as the protest wasn’t sanctioned. From all legal perspectives they were all individuals walking on streets during a curfew. That is, unless mob rule determines who can defend himself and who can’t. . 




SuperMatt said:


> running around from place to place with it, claiming that he’s wanting a chance to defend against the mob... I don’t think he can use self-defense here.



That’s not how self defense work, the same way that a naked woman that get raped can’t be blamed but has the right to defend herself. Unless he was a direct threat to someone, he has a right of self defense if his life is in danger. 



SuperMatt said:


> The burden of proof is generally on the prosecution. HOWEVER, when the defense concedes that their client did in fact shoot people to death, now THEY have a burden of proof that it was self-defense.



Well, it goes both ways. The prosecutor will have to demonstrate intent or negligence. The defense will have to counter by demonstrating that the situation had reasonable resolution giving the circumstances.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Well, it goes both ways. The prosecutor will have to demonstrate intent or negligence. The defense will have to counter by demonstrating that the situation had reasonable resolution giving the circumstances.




By this point, it's fairly to safe to assume that he's not going to face any time for the first killing. From the videos we've seen, it looks like a clear cut case of self defense, and the prosecution hasn't made much of a case illustrating otherwise.

He may still be on the hook for manslaughter and assault charges for the 2nd killing and wounding. He killed someone, panicked, ran, a crowd followed, assuming he murdered someone, and the shit hit the fan. He's partially responsible for that.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> But what about the people he DID kill? They were NOT holding weapons. He shot 3 people, 2 fatally. Were all of 3 them mortal threats to him? That’s a pretty high bar to jump over for the defense, IMHO.




That’s partially irrelevant. Mr Rittenhouse had a weapon, attacking someone and trying to disarm someone with a gun that is not a threat (important) might create a case in which lethal force might be necessary. If you’re walking with a gun, and a big dude attacks you with a punch and goes for your gun, you certainly have a right to shoot as the weapon can  be used against you. 



> Did you intentionally leave out those other details? Shooting a person that survived is the least of Rittenhouse’s worries. If THAT shooting is justified, there are still the other 2 people to deal with, and if pulling a gun is the bar for returning fire, then he should be guilty of murder in the other 2 shootings.




No, pulling a gun is not the bar. The bar is a reasonable threat and someone stealing your gun is a reasonable threat. 
Mr Rosenbaum followed mr Rittenhouse yelling “I’ll kill you” and apparently lounged for the gun. This after mr Rosenbaum said to Mr Rittenhouse “If I see you alone I’ll kill you”. In addition, a shot was fired when Mr Rittenhouse was running away. 

As for the other two individuals that died, one had a blunt object. The other one attacked Mr Rittenhouse. When Mr Rittenhouse shot the other two individuals after he was tripped and while he was on the ground. It might be reasonable that he feared for his life. More importantly, when the individuals reached Mr Rittenhouse, he was running away from the crowd. This is admitted by witnesses and accepted by the prosecution. This is important because while it is possible that they wanted to catch Mr Rittenhouse, there is no right to attack someone after the threat is over and the individual is running away (a piece of info often missed by 2A fans). That is, if someone attacks you at home, once he starts running away, you can’t shoot them as the threat is now over.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> By this point, it's fairly to safe to assume that he's not going to face any time for the first killing. From the videos we've seen, it looks like a clear cut case of self defense, and the prosecution hasn't made much of a case illustrating otherwise.



One witness that took pics just admitted that Mr Rosenbaum was angry and had to be held back by other crowd members. 


Renzatic said:


> He may still be on the hook for manslaughter and assault charges for the 2nd killing and wounding. He killed someone, panicked, ran, a crowd followed, assuming he murdered someone, and the shit hit the fan. He's partially responsible for that.



It’s possible. The saving grace for him might be that he was running away and wasn’t pointing the gun at anyone until he was made trip.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Certainly clear of 1st degree murder. As for negligent manslaughter or manslaughter for the 99 innocents, it’s very possible if the other 99 weren’t doing anything threatening.



So much for a serious discussion.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> So much for a serious discussion.



What do you mean?


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> This is important because while it is possible that they wanted to catch Mr Rittenhouse, there is no right to attack someone after the threat is over and the individual is running away (a piece of info often missed by 2A fans). That is, if someone attacks you at home, once he starts running away, you can’t shoot them as the threat is now over.




You could basically sum up the Rittenhouse case as "who has the greater right when everyone involved is in the wrong."

An idiot kid hopped up on power fantasies, shepherded by his mom, placed in the midst of a politically charged riot driven by a lot of very angry people choking on their own adrenaline. It was destined to end badly.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> You could basically sum up the Rittenhouse case as "who has the greater right when everyone involved is in the wrong."
> 
> An idiot kid hopped up on power fantasies, shepherded by his mom, placed in the midst of a politically charged riot. It was destined to end badly.



I do agree with this. Total clusterfuck from the start, on so many angles, including police response and investigation. Now even the prosecution sucks badly.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> What do you mean?




Let's face it. Someone armed with a bazooka firing into a crowd, killing 100 people? There's no way that would earn anything but a 2nd degree murder charge, even if he was threatened by one of the many.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> Let's face it. Someone armed with a bazooka firing into a crowd, killing 100 people? There's no way that would earn anything but a 2nd degree murder charge, even if he was threatened by one of the many.



Ok I definitely give you that. Certainly not 1st degree. For 2nd degree it might depend on the “heat of the moment” factor (like 100 people storm your house one points a gun at you and you have about 0.05 seconds to react), but I wouldn’t won’t to be the defense lawyer in a case like that.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> I do agree with this. Total clusterfuck from the start, on so many angles, including police response and investigation. Now even the prosecution sucks badly.




One thing I do find funny is that the people who think Rittenhouse was justified for shooting Grosskreutz and the other are also the same people who side with the McMichaels for shooting Ahmed Arbery.

I guess it all depends upon who's doing the shooting, and who's being shot.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Ok I definitely give you that. Certainly not 1st degree. For 2nd degree it might depend on the “heat of the moment” factor (like 100 people storm your house one points a gun at you and you have about 0.05 seconds to react), but I wouldn’t won’t to be the defense lawyer in a case like that.




It'd be a clear second degree charge. It wasn't premeditated, but hey, he had a bazooka, he knew what it was for, and how dangerous it was, and shooting it into a crowd to quell a single person would be an act of extreme recklessness.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Where the heck did they find this prosecutor? He’s now dismantling the case by the other prosecutor (Dinger?!?) and the witness is now claiming that the prosecutor is saying the wrong stuff! Jeez.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Where the heck did they find this prosecutor? He’s now dismantling the case by the other prosecutor (Dinger?!?) and the witness is now claiming that the prosecutor is saying the wrong stuff! Jeez.




Think it's possible the state could be sabotaging its own case?


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> One thing I do find funny is that the people who think Rittenhouse was justified for shooting Grosskreutz and the other are also the same people who side with the McMichaels for shooting Ahmed Arbery.
> 
> I guess it all depends upon who's doing the shooting, and who's being shot.



I might say that Rittenhouse was legally right in shooting, as for Arbery no way. To me that’s a case of murder and I do hope they get the maximum penalty because of their premeditated roadblock. 

Problem is that two different cases are clustered together for political reasons.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> Think it's possible the state could be sabotaging its own case?



At this point they are just trying to not end up unemployed!!!


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> I might say that Rittenhouse was legally right in shooting, as for Arbery no way. To me that’s a case of murder and I do hope they get the maximum penalty because of their premeditated roadblock.
> 
> Problem is that two different cases are clustered together for political reasons.




I'll admit that the Rittenhouse case is a lot more vague from a legal standpoint.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> I'll admit that the Rittenhouse case is a lot more vague from a legal standpoint.



I think it’s a bad case of idiocy together with mob panic. What a mess.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Prosecutor: “well we didn’t ask you to change your testimony”
Witness: “yes, you did.”
Prosecutor: “we did?”
Witness. : “yes you asked me to add information about Mr (name) because you have another lawsuit with him”
[silence]
Prosecutor: “you remember how the meeting ended?”
Witness: “yes, you told me that you’d be in touch with me”
Prosecutor: “so you don’t remember that we talked about your photography?”
Witness:”I do but that was at the beginning.”
Prosecutor: “it was?”
Witness: “yes when we were waiting on the other prosecutor”

Not verbatim but more or less precise. This must be the most awkward prosecution line of questioning ever.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> I think it’s a bad case of idiocy together with mob panic. What a mess.




If it were just an isolated incident, I probably wouldn't be nearly as concerned about its outcome as I am. But I KNOW that there a fair number of people out there who are gonna treat this kid as a conquering hero, and use his eventual exoneration as an excuse to pull the same bullshit.

It's a terrible situation. The kid wasn't there for entirely altruistic reasons. He wanted to shoot people. Damn shame for us all that he was lucky enough to end up a situation where it could be legally justifiable.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> If it were just an isolated incident, I probably wouldn't be nearly as concerned about its outcome as I am. But I KNOW that there a fair number of people out there who are gonna treat this kid as a conquering hero, and use his eventual exoneration as an excuse to pull the same bullshit.
> 
> It's a terrible situation. The kid wasn't there for entirely altruistic reasons. He wanted to shoot people. Damn shame for us all that he was lucky enough to end up a situation where it could be legally justifiable.



Agreed on all points. I am not happy about it and hopefully some legislation will come out of this.


----------



## Herdfan

Renzatic said:


> If it were just an isolated incident, I probably wouldn't be nearly as concerned about its outcome as I am. *But I KNOW that there a fair number of people out there who are gonna treat this kid as a conquering hero,* and use his eventual exoneration as an excuse to pull the same bullshit.
> 
> It's a terrible situation. The kid wasn't there for entirely altruistic reasons. He wanted to shoot people. Damn shame for us all that he was lucky enough to end up a situation where it could be legally justifiable.




Surprise, surprise, but I am not.  He was an idiot who was someplace he didn't need to be with a weapon he 1)shouldn't have had and 2)certainly shouldn't had with him.  He could just as easily been the one in the morgue.  He may skate legally, but his life will be a shell of what it could have been.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> Ok, but you would agree that what the laws should’ve been is not part of the trial about Mr Rittenhouse culpability.



You told me I'm exaggerating. I'm just having a big picture approach to all of this  because I'm starting to feel that today's handwringing means more shit my generation will have to (try to) fix. It boils down to this.
Gun lobby floods USA with weapons => weapons go unregulated and ""lost"" (again >250K guns/yr) => every fucking idiot gets armed => a leading cause of childhood mortality becomes gun violence (#3, beating cancer) => police gets to overcall the dangers of their job (yet ignore COVID, the actual #1 cop killer) => cops get justification to brutalize the citizens with nearly total impunity (lookup the population adjusted fatalities in US police custody and compare it Canada's murder rate) => people protest police violence => the extreme end of the spectrum causes trouble => provides sense of entitlement for this vigilante shit by Rittenhousoids => the legal system sides with Rittenhouse => positive feedback loop emerges.











yaxomoxay said:


> I am not sure, but I have the feeling that the curfew “shields” Mr Rittenhouse, at least to a point. The protest was not an organized protest, with all the requirements of an organized event. In other words, independently on us agreeing or not with the protest, they should’ve not been there. The same way works for Rittenhouse. He should’ve not been there. The result is that neither party had a valid claim on “I can walk these streets”, which makes being there a sort of provocative act by default. Disparate violence and chaos made thing much worse. Idiocy by Rittenhouse & company made thing much much worse.



I'm pissed about this because if his victims were "rioters" then Rittenhouse is a "rioter" too.



yaxomoxay said:


> To be honest, this type of sarcastic remarks make me chuckle but they can get frustrating. I wrote a post, and immediately two answers went into the “qualifications” subject. We’re on an anonymous forum. We’re sharing ideas. We’re discussing current events. We’re just talking the same way we’d talk to a few friends in front of a beer or coffee. There’s no need to be lawyers, or SME’s, to share ideas and opinions. That’s how people learn. Do we really have to preface all statements with “In my humble opinion”? Do we really have to be certified SME’s to say what we think?



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.

----
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? Again, an idiot is running around with an oversized gun while the crowd is screaming active shooter, which totally changes the dynamics. And the reason I'm triple pissed is that after 2 virtual and 1 live hospital active shooter drills (run, hide...fight back if no other option), I actually am not surprised that people felt they had to fight KR because, well, 1) they didn't know his intent and 2) that fucking gun indicates that he has the power to kill anybody around before they could run away.

What the fuck is wrong with this country?!


----------



## GermanSuplex

You put this case up against the George Zimmerman trial, because there’s a lot of parallels. Zimmerman was armed, confronted an unarmed teenager and killed him. This kid was armed, was confronted, and then killed two people and shot another.

Two different states, but from a social perspective, I guarantee you there are few people who support Rittenhouse that also supported Trayvon Martin. Somehow, it was ok for this illegally armed kid to blast three people, but it’s not ok to protect yourself when an armed wannabe cop vigilante confronts you.

Rittenhouse will almost definitely get off light or altogether, but that will embolden other armed lunatics. You don’t need to be legally armed, you dont need to exercise any responsibility. Just arm yourself and go out looking for trouble, and shoot whoever confronts you when you find it.

The GOP is trying to normalize gun violence and murder. Take a look at Paul Gosar news today if you doubt that. This isn’t some Twitter rando, it’s a sitting member of Congress.

These people are nuts.


----------



## Eric

Maybe a question for @yaxomoxay but all signs appear to be that he will get off (from what rumors I'm hearing anyway) so why would they put him on the stand if they're so certain, isn't that normally a last resort?


----------



## yaxomoxay

Eric said:


> Maybe a question for @yaxomoxay but all signs appear to be that he will get off (from what rumors I'm hearing anyway) so why would they put him on the stand if they're so certain, isn't that normally a last resort?




My understanding is that it works differently for self defense cases. I guess the defense wants to show that he was scared and all the bs that comes with it.

And honestly with this prosecution even Hitler would be acquitted. They self owned again today, multiple times, and the photographer destroyed them… on their own questioning.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> You told me I'm exaggerating. I'm just having a big picture approach to all of this  because I'm starting to feel that today's handwringing means more shit my generation will have to (try to) fix. It boils down to this.



I will reply tomorrow to the rest of this post, but here I want to apologize. I was referring to the idea that this will create a legal precedent (hence the rest of my original reply), not a political or a sociological element (stuff I desire not to discuss). By reading your reply and re-reading mine it’s clear that my usage of “to exaggerate” in this context was very misleading.


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> My understanding is that it works differently for self defense cases. I guess the defense wants to show that he was scared and all the bs that comes with it.
> 
> And honestly with this prosecution even Hitler would be acquitted. They self owned again today, multiple times, and the photographer destroyed them… on their own questioning.



Right, but putting your emotion and bias aside, when would a defense attorney ever have their defendant testify in an open and shut case? Would like to see you cite something here showing how common this is, as a professional I mean. Everything I read says they would never do it unless they felt had no other choice.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Eric said:


> Right, but putting your emotion and bias aside, when would a defense attorney ever have their defendant testify in an open and shut case? Would like to see you cite something here showing how common this is, as a professional I mean. Everything I read says they would never do it unless they felt had no other choice.




_“It’s practically a necessity,” veteran Kenosha attorney Michael Cicchini said. “The defendant is in the best position to say what he was feeling, what his fears were, what he was thinking in that moment. I’ve never had a client in a self-defense case not testify.”









						As the prosecution rests, will Kyle Rittenhouse take the stand in his own defense?
					

Kyle Rittenhouse could soon tell his Kenosha jury his story, why he killed two men and wounded a third.




					www.chicagotribune.com
				





_


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> _“It’s practically a necessity,” veteran Kenosha attorney Michael Cicchini said. “The defendant is in the best position to say what he was feeling, what his fears were, what he was thinking in that moment. I’ve never had a client in a self-defense case not testify.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the prosecution rests, will Kyle Rittenhouse take the stand in his own defense?
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse could soon tell his Kenosha jury his story, why he killed two men and wounded a third.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.chicagotribune.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



Interesting, when querying Google on "court should the defendant testify" these are from the front page alone. 



> As a Wyoming criminal defense attorney, I can count on one hand the number of times I've had my client testify. As a rule, criminal defense lawyers will not allow a defendant to testify unless it is absolutely necessary.







__





						Should a Criminal Defendant Testify at Trial? — #LadyJustice Speaks
					

In actuality, except for in a few cases, the question, "Should a criminal defendant testify at trial?" is pretty straightforward.




					www.justcriminallaw.com
				






> One of the dangers of a defendant testifying in a criminal case is that once he testifies, he has waived his right to remain silent and will likely be ordered by the court to answer questions if he refuses to do so after taking the stand. Criminal trials can be very emotional for defendants who have everything to gain or lose based on the verdict of the jury. This can be very stressful. Some people do not perform well under stress either because they become irritated, agitated or nervous. Another factor is the demeanor of the witness. Some people come off as credible and likeable while others appear cold and evasive.











						When Should a Defendant Testify? - Berry Law
					

In any criminal case, the defendant has the right to testify and the right not to testify. If a defendant chooses not to testify, the fact that the defendant did not testify cannot be held against him in court. Furthermore a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a jury instruction which...




					jsberrylaw.com
				






> Criminal defense lawyers generally advise our clients not to testify at trial. Too many things can go wrong.
> 
> When you testify at trial in a criminal case you open yourself up to having _any_ prior bad acts introduced as evidence. These misdeeds, while unrelated to the crime a defendant is accused of committing, can be used by the jury to infer that the defendant committed the crime in question.







__





						Should a Criminal Defendant Testify at Trial? - Fremstad Law
					

A criminal defendant has the right not to testify at trial. In all but a few cases, we recommend that they do not.



					www.fremstadlaw.com
				




Sounds like they will not do it as a general rule unless they believe they have no other choice. We're clearly not going to get an objective opinion from you on this.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> Interesting, when querying Google on "court should the defendant testify" these are from the front page alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should a Criminal Defendant Testify at Trial? — #LadyJustice Speaks
> 
> 
> In actuality, except for in a few cases, the question, "Should a criminal defendant testify at trial?" is pretty straightforward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.justcriminallaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Should a Defendant Testify? - Berry Law
> 
> 
> In any criminal case, the defendant has the right to testify and the right not to testify. If a defendant chooses not to testify, the fact that the defendant did not testify cannot be held against him in court. Furthermore a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a jury instruction which...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jsberrylaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should a Criminal Defendant Testify at Trial? - Fremstad Law
> 
> 
> A criminal defendant has the right not to testify at trial. In all but a few cases, we recommend that they do not.
> 
> 
> 
> www.fremstadlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like they will not do it as a general rule unless they believe they have no other choice. We're clearly not going to get an objective opinion from you on this.




I can see the argument for a defendant to testify in a self-defense murder case, since in those cases (as we discussed earlier), the defendant is basically conceding that they killed somebody. So then the defendant’s testimony could explain how they felt threatened, or describe the behavior of the people they thought were threatening them.

That being said, it can really backfire if you get caught in a lie, or if the cross-examination by the prosecutor exposes something you would rather not have exposed. I would think a teenager dumb enough to run around street protests with a loaded AR-15 would be highly likely to say something stupid on the stand, and that the defense attorneys would strongly suggest that he not testify.

Here is a story from the Ahmaud Arbery case in which one of the suspects changed his story, calling his credibility into question:









						Testimony: Ahmaud Arbery slaying defendant changed his story
					

BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — The man who initiated the chase that ended in Ahmaud Arbery's death quickly changed his story about why he suspected the 25-year-old Black man running in his neighborhood was a criminal, two police officers testified Tuesday.




					apnews.com


----------



## yaxomoxay

Eric said:


> . We're clearly not going to get an objective opinion from you on this.



what the hell? You asked for an opinion, I replied based on my understanding and then you asked for any kind of supporting info, which I provided. Then you respond with generic articles that are not about self defense, and then you attack me like that? Seriously man. Do you think I have any idea if it’s a good or bad move for the defense? Jeez.


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> *what the hell? You asked for an opinion*, I replied based on my understanding and then you asked for any kind of supporting info, which I provided. Then you respond with generic articles that are not about self defense, and then you attack me like that? Seriously man. Do you think I have any idea if it’s a good or bad move for the defense? Jeez.



Which is clearly skewed and not based in fact. Regardless of this case it seems like something someone who claims to be associated with practicing law would know. There's no shame in claiming bias here, would just be nice to see you admit it.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Eric said:


> Which is clearly skewed and not based in fact.



Which fact are you talking about? It’s a tactical decision by the defense. They will make it, either way. Some lawyers will say that it should be done, others will say it’s stupid. In a self defense case, the act (Homicide) is admitted already, so the question is mostly about the state of mind, which is the differentiator between this type of cases and others. 



Eric said:


> Regardless of this case it seems like something someone who claims to be associated with practicing law would know.




I don’t practice law. I work in gov’t and I deal with the law (not criminal law) but I don’t practice law. 



Eric said:


> There's no shame in claiming bias here, would just be nice to see you admit it.



I have no idea what to tell you, it saddens me you go against my character but so be it. I am used to it.


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> *Which fact are you talking about?* It’s a tactical decision by the defense. They will make it, either way. Some lawyers will say that it should be done, others will say it’s stupid. In a self defense case, the act (Homicide) is admitted already, so the question is mostly about the state of mind, which is the differentiator between this type of cases and others.



The fact that most defense attorneys do NOT want their clients to testify for the above mentioned reasons, it seems to be common knowledge but was looking for you to show otherwise and I would've actually listened due to your background.



yaxomoxay said:


> I don’t practice law. I work in gov’t and I deal with the law (not criminal law) but I don’t practice law.



Fair enough.



yaxomoxay said:


> I have no idea what to tell you, it saddens me you go against my character but so be it. I am used to it.



To me, this fucker should fry and that's my biased opinion. Yours appears to be he should walk, seems like there's no disagreement here. I was just under the impression that you knew more about this professionally and would offer up a more objective view but it seems like that won't happen, it's too politically charged.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Eric said:


> The fact that most defense attorneys do NOT want their clients to testify for the above mentioned reasons, it seems to be common knowledge but was looking for you to show otherwise and I would've actually listened due to your background.



I don’t have a poll available. As I said, it seems to me that in self defense cases this is different than other cases because the act (homicide) is not in question.


Eric said:


> To me, this fucker should fry and that's my biased opinion. Yours appears to be he should walk, seems like there's no disagreement here. I was just under the impression that you knew more about this professionally and would offer up a more objective view but it seems like that won't happen, it's too politically charged.



I would like for him to go to jail, but after listening to hours of the trial and after noticing that the prosecution is unable to even start an argument, I don’t see other way. My opinion of course, and I am ready to be proven wrong.

Just to give you an idea, I kind of see it like Bill Cosby. I’d love for him to rot in jail.  I know he deserves to rot in jail. But the law is on his side - and there might be a reason for that (in Cosby’s case it’s clear here is less clear cut IMO).


----------



## Herdfan

yaxomoxay said:


> My understanding is that it works differently for self defense cases. I guess the defense wants to show that he was scared and all the bs that comes with it.
> 
> And honestly with this prosecution even Hitler would be acquitted. They self owned again today, multiple times, and the photographer destroyed them… on their own questioning.




I understand why you would want the defendant to testify in a normal self-defense case.  But normally the prosecution doesn't basically hand the defense an acquittal multiple times during the trial.

Any chance for a directed verdict?


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> 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.



P_X said:


> ----
> 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.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Herdfan said:


> I understand why you would want the defendant to testify in a normal self-defense case.  But normally the prosecution doesn't basically hand the defense an acquittal multiple times during the trial.
> 
> Any chance for a directed verdict?



I bet they won’t even ask for it. With a prosecution like this they might get a full acquittal which would make Mr R 100% innocent even in the public eye.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Mr Rittenhouse is testifying.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.



In essense we've learned nothing new other than what the videos showed. The issue is both legal and ethical. Rosenbaum (let's not dehumanize these people) who was killed first was lounging towards KR and he had to make a split second choice in the context of already shots being fired. So every single idiot did their best to escalate this situation, including KR. What happened after is a lot more significant. People screaming that KR killed someone, i.e. he is an active threat and is trying to get away with murder. 

This doesn't answer the biggest questions that are:
What was the perception/understanding of the situation of the two subsequent people who attacked KR. Did they see the first homicide? Did they hear people screaming someone was killed (they must have heard 2-3 shots at least)? How much did they see of the behavior of KR before and/or after the first homicide? As I mentioned above, the math is completely different if they've attacked KR because they thought they are defending their peers. 

Grosskreutz also stated in his testimony, that his understanding was that after KR shot him the first time and he put his hands up, he thought KR pulled the trigger but the gun didn't fire. It's also not clear to me whether Grosskreutz aimed his weapon at KR before he Huber was killed or after. The sequence of events is absolutely critical, and this is why I got pissed about a bunch of so-called zoom lawyers doing commentary like it was some kind of sporting event. It was nothing of substance.

Again, at the end of the day all of these people were somewhere they shouldn't have been. Some took items with them they should not have brought and some committed acts they shouldn't have. The result is two people dead and the legal system is tested whether - other than cops - vigilantes get the encouragement to escalate situations and expect impunity.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> As I mentioned above, the math is completely different if they've attacked KR because they thought they are defending their peers.



Again, I don’t disagree with most of your post. However the question that this trial is trying to answer has little to do with the mindset of the chasers and all to do with the mindset of the defendant. It is very possible that they thought he was an active shooter and at the same time he - not as an active shooter - feared for his life and with legitimacy shot in self defense. That night, I repeat, was a total clusterfuck. 

A similar, very simplified example is: person A is walking. Person B points a gun at A to rob. Person A is quick enough and shoots person B. Person C turns his head and sees that Person A shot person B, he thinks that person A is an active shooter and points his own gun at Person A. Person A fears for his life and shoots person C. Both person A and C would be innocent as they both acted in good faith and for fear of their life. At a trial for person A, what person C was thinking is virtually irrelevant. At a trial for person C, what person A was thinking is virtually irrelevant.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> Again, I don’t disagree with most of your post. However the question that this trial is trying to answer has little to do with the mindset of the chasers and all to do with the mindset of the defendant. It is very possible that they thought he was an active shooter and at the same time he - not as an active shooter - feared for his life and with legitimacy shot in self defense. That night, I repeat, was a total clusterfuck.
> 
> A similar, very simplified example is: person A is walking. Person B points a gun at A to rob. Person A is quick enough and shoots person B. Person C turns his head and sees that Person A shot person B, he thinks that person A is an active shooter and points his own gun at Person A. Person A fears for his life and shoots person C. Both person A and C would be innocent as they both acted in good faith and for fear of their life. At a trial for person A, what person C was thinking is virtually irrelevant. At a trial for person C, what person A was thinking is virtually irrelevant.



This is exactly why i asked you if you had a law degree or formal law training. Without that i see too much confidence in this reasoning and little substantiation. Especially in precedent law. You told me that this case won’t create a precedent, but you’re also claiming something that either has a precedent, or this case will create one.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> This is exactly why i asked you if you had a law degree or formal law training. Without that i see too much confidence in this reasoning and little substantiation. Especially in precedent law. You told me that this case won’t create a precedent, but you’re also claiming something that either has a precedent, or this case will create one.



Well, as I said. Of course it’s an opinion, and I am an anonymous dude on the internet. Take it for what it is. I don’t think that I have to preface it every time and talk conditionally every single time. We’re just chatting, friendly (I hope). And I am ready to be proven very wrong.

Is there any criminal lawyer on this forum?


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> Well, as I said. Of course it’s an opinion, and I am an anonymous dude on the internet. Take it for what it is. I don’t think that I have to preface it every time and talk conditionally every single time. We’re just chatting, friendly (I hope). And I am ready to be proven very wrong.
> 
> Is there any criminal lawyer on this forum?



Sure. Take my friendly comment that if we are talking law, precedents matter the most. I hated the the mental masturbation of the ethics classes (and consults) I’ve had in the past, when the ultimate decisions are always determined by other major factors than our benevolent reasoning.


----------



## Alli

What happens when Rittenhouse takes the stand and is unable to show that he was scared (because he wasn’t) or that he feels any remorse for what he’s done?


----------



## Renzatic

Alli said:


> What happens when Rittenhouse takes the stand and is unable to show that he was scared (because he wasn’t) or that he feels any remorse for what he’s done?




He's already testified, hasn't he?

Though it'd be funny if he took the stand, and goes all out full tilt with the 3%er propaganda. YO, ALL I WAS DOING WAS DEFENDING THE COUNTRY I LOVE FROM THESE LIBTARDS AND THEIR COMMIE SNOWFLAKE SUPPORTERS FROM THEIR WHITE GENOCIDE NARRATIVE DRIVEN AGENDA, BRO! I WASN'T SKEERD NONE. NOT WITH MY AR FULLY DECKED OUT WITH A BLACKHAWK BUTTSTOCK AND SOME HOLLOW POINTS, YO!


----------



## JayMysteri0

Alli said:


> What happens when Rittenhouse takes the stand and is unable to show that he was scared (because he wasn’t) or that he feels any remorse for what he’s done?





Renzatic said:


> He's already testified, hasn't he?
> 
> Though it'd be funny if he took the stand, and goes all out full tilt with the 3%er propaganda. YO, ALL I WAS DOING WAS DEFENDING THE COUNTRY I LOVE FROM THESE LIBTARDS AND THEIR COMMIE SNOWFLAKE SUPPORTERS FROM THEIR WHITE GENOCIDE NARRATIVE DRIVEN AGENDA, BRO! I WASN'T SKEERD NONE. NOT WITH MY AR FULLY DECKED OUT WITH A BLACKHAWK BUTTSTOCK AND SOME HOLLOW POINTS, YO!




He's performing testifying today I believe.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1458499587904192514/

Supposedly these tears were recently, since they weren't present when questioned by prosecutors.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1458479837992001539/

When actors are chiming in on your performance...


----------



## Renzatic

JayMysteri0 said:


> He's performing testifying today I believe.




We really do need a rolleyes emote for a like.

As many time as this kid has likely told this story to his fans and friends, I doubt he feels much of anything about it anymore.


----------



## SuperMatt

This kid needs rehabilitation of some kind. Ignore the “justice” aspect of it. He needs to spend some time in prison to be rehabilitated, because he has serious issues that won’t go away if he gets off scot-free. I believe he is still a danger to society. Maybe 5 years to think about things and gain some maturity as a human being? He doesn’t seem to think he did anything wrong, so he will continue with similar behavior unless the system does something.


----------



## JayMysteri0

"But wait, there's more!"

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1458520482534264837/

I can't wait for a few years from now, when there's some book that has a picture of the judge, defense, and defendant all in the judge's chambers laughing it up together.


----------



## yaxomoxay

I saw the whole exchange (which is actually 3 exchanges at different times). The judge is right here and the defense is right in asking mistrial with prejudice (judge will never agree) because it might help in appeal if needed. What the prosecutor did was absolutely, utterly insane if not unconstitutional. I have no idea why he even tried to first defy an order by the judge to introduce elements that are external to the trial and weren’t disclosed and then went all over into 5th amendment rights. I truly do not understand this prosecutor.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> I truly do not understand this prosecutor.




Maybe he's just tired of being a prosecutor.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> Maybe he's just tired of being a prosecutor.



Well, I am not sure he’s going to be working in the legal system after this prosecutorial exchanges. I was hoping for a much more solid prosecution to be honest, regardless of the innocence or not of mr Rittenhouse.


----------



## SuperMatt

The justice system in Kenosha is a joke. This judge started the trial with massive advantages for the defense, banning the word “victims” but allowing the defense to call these non-victims “rioters” instead? The prosecutors are the legal version of keystone cops. A juror removed for an offensive joke about the Jacob Blake shooting... do we really think he’s the only juror with that mindset? A teenager is put on the stand by the defense team, which is a dumb move and should be like a nice slow pitch right across home plate with the bases loaded for the prosecutors... but I’m not seeing them taking the advantage at all. And the fake crying on the stand... gotta say, maybe he should have taken acting lessons from somebody OTHER THAN Justice Kavanaugh.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Well, I am not sure he’s going to be working in the legal system after this prosecutorial exchanges. I was hoping for a much more solid prosecution to be honest, regardless of the innocence or not of mr Rittenhouse.




Considering the general mood and vibe these days, it seems to be going about par for the course. 

Screw competence! We're here for the SPECTACLE! Give us a SHOW!


----------



## SuperMatt

And now the judge is siding with the defense that zooming in on an image on an iPad will distort the image and show the jury something that isn’t there? Wow. Geriatric judges making decisions on how zooming in with an iPad works... yikes.



> “Is the image in its virginal state?” the judge asked.



OK, Boomer.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> banning the word “victims”



Well I would hope so. 

but allowing the defense to call these non-victims “rioters” instead?

Wasn’t the requirement that the defense had to prove that they were actually rioting and that mere presence wasn’t enough? I might be misremembering.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Wasn’t the requirement that the defense had to prove that they were actually rioting and that mere presence wasn’t enough? I might be misremembering.




Yup. One of the stipulations was that they could be called rioters and arsonists only if the defense provided evidence of them doing such.

I'm not sure if anyone has even uttered those words during the trial. I've just been watching random clips here and there.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> Yup. One of the stipulations was that they could be called rioters and arsonists only if the defense provided evidence of them doing such.
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone has even uttered those words during the trial. I've just been watching random clips here and there.



I might be wrong here, but I think they say it in general terms, as in the crowd, but they never used it for individuals.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Well I would hope so.



What do we call somebody who dies in a car crash? Or a natural disaster? Yep, a victim.

The term doesn’t imply a crime, or that the accused committed a crime. The people that were shot in Kenosha are victims of gunshot wounds. That is just the truth.

This judge (and many others I have learned) err when it comes to this question, IMHO. There is no question these people died from gunshot wounds.

Definition from the Oxford dictionary: "A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> What do we call somebody who dies in a car crash? Or a natural disaster? Yep, a victim.
> 
> The term doesn’t imply a crime, or that the accused committed a crime.



colloquially, you’re right. In the legal system things are a bit different and carry some significance. 

Suppose that someone punches you, and you punch back. The dude falls and dies. You go on trial for homicide. You don’t want the dude to be called a “victim” because he is actually the perpetrator even if colloquially I can say he’s the victim of your punch. Not saying that it’s equivalent, but using “victim” is potentially misleading the jury. The moment you’re found guilty, which means you committed a crime, he is a victim.


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> He's performing testifying today I believe.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1458499587904192514/
> 
> Supposedly these tears were recently, since they weren't present when questioned by prosecutors.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1458479837992001539/
> 
> When actors are chiming in on your performance...



Wow. He is really bad at this. Other than the fake crying, his body language just really amplifies how fake that breakdown is. Evolutionarily if you’re in the vulnerable position and being exposed you don’t have your arms up and keep your body wide open for an attack.  

Which corroborates my actual prejudice, this guy doesn’t understand the gravity of what he did or what’s at stake.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> colloquially, you’re right. In the legal system things are a bit different and carry some significance.
> 
> Suppose that someone punches you, and you punch back. The dude falls and dies. You go on trial for homicide. You don’t want the dude to be called a “victim” because he is actually the perpetrator even if colloquially I can say he’s the victim of your punch. Not saying that it’s equivalent, but using “victim” is potentially misleading the jury. The moment you’re found guilty, which means you committed a crime, he is a victim.



I suppose removing the word victim is easier than requiring people to say what the person is/was a victim of? I don’t like it because in the name of removing bias, IMHO the judge is introducing bias.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> Wow. He is really bad at this. Other than the fake crying, his body language just really amplifies how fake that breakdown is. Evolutionarily if you’re in the vulnerable position and being exposed you don’t have your arms up and keep your body wide open for an attack.
> 
> Which corroborates my actual prejudice, this guy doesn’t understand the gravity of what he did or what’s at stake.



He needs to be rehabilitated. He is a danger to society.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> colloquially, you’re right. In the legal system things are a bit different and carry some significance.
> 
> Suppose that someone punches you, and you punch back. The dude falls and dies. You go on trial for homicide. You don’t want the dude to be called a “victim” because he is actually the perpetrator even if colloquially I can say he’s the victim of your punch. Not saying that it’s equivalent, but using “victim” is potentially misleading the jury. The moment you’re found guilty, which means you committed a crime, he is a victim.



Can you point to any source that establishes this as common legal practice? I asked my friends who have actual but non-US law degrees and they disagree with you.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> colloquially, you’re right. In the legal system things are a bit different and carry some significance.




It's also a good idea to keep in mind that this isn't the first time this particular judge has enforced this rule.


----------



## Renzatic

P_X said:


> Can you point to any source that establishes this as common legal practice? I asked my friends who have actual but non-US law degrees and they disagree with you.




I don't know if it's common exactly, but it may still be kosher from a legal standpoint.

In a situation where no one is clearly guilty or innocent per the law, the world victim could be used to introduce bias against the defense. Since this judge has enforced this rule in similar situations previously, it's not something I'm overly hung up on.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> Can you point to any source that establishes this as common legal practice? I asked my friends who have actual but non-US law degrees and they disagree with you.



This provides some elements albeit from a different angle. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3213&context=sdlr

This is from a judge: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/o...ding-the-term-victim-helps-ensure-fair-trials

If you allow me, let me bring a case. Just for friendly discussion. A case I read about a couple of years ago and is still ongoing
and a case that breaks my heart. Miss Chrystul Kizer was raped, and trafficked. Raped and trafficked. Raped and trafficked. Before she was 18. Imagine her life. Then, she kills her rapist and trafficker. A very sad and tragic story. She’s on trial from premeditated murder and risks life in prison. There is no question that she killed him. She admitted it, publicly. He was killed by her gun. She prepared the gun, and she shot him. Now, her only defense is that being trafficked and raped she had to find a way to defend herself (laws on the subject are kind of messy). Now, if you were impartial, or if you were the defendant, would you want her rapist and trafficker to be called “victim” over and over during the trial while she’s called “the shooter”? Colloquially yes, he’s is the victim of her shooting. Legally and for a jury? No. Not yet. And, personally, I hope never.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> Can you point to any source that establishes this as common legal practice? I asked my friends who have actual but non-US law degrees and they disagree with you.



I found the following documents in the McMichael trial (accused of killing Ahmaud Arbery).

A motion by defense to prevent the word “victim” being used to refer to Arbery:


			https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/69155/44-Motion-in-limne
		


The recommendation to deny the motion by the state:


			https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/69577/44-States-Response-to-Def-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-the-Use-of-the-Word-Victim
		


I cannot seem to find the judge’s final order on this. I will keep looking. However, the judge preemptively banning the word without the defense filing a motion? That seems to be abnormal.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> This provides some elements albeit from a different angle. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3213&context=sdlr
> 
> This is from a judge: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/o...ding-the-term-victim-helps-ensure-fair-trials
> 
> If you allow me, let me bring a case. Just for friendly discussion. A case I read about a couple of years ago and is still ongoing
> and a case that breaks my heart. Miss Chrystul Kizer was raped, and trafficked. Raped and trafficked. Raped and trafficked. Before she was 18. Imagine her life. Then, she kills her rapist and trafficker. A very sad and tragic story. She’s on trial from premeditated murder and risks life in prison. There is no question that she killed him. She admitted it, publicly. He was killed by her gun. She prepared the gun, and she shot him. Now, her only defense is that being trafficked and raped she had to find a way to defend herself (laws on the subject are kind of messy). Now, if you were impartial, or if you were the defendant, would you want her rapist and trafficker to be called “victim” over and over during the trial while she’s called “the shooter”? Colloquially yes, he’s is the victim of her shooting. Legally and for a jury? No. Not yet. And, personally, I hope never.



Appreciate the links will check them at home. 

Emotional strings aside, yeah. That guy is the victim of a homicide. It’s a fact. Just because the victim was impalatable won’t change that fact. The example isn’t great anyway because the dynamics of victimization are more bilateral.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> Appreciate the links will check them at home.
> 
> Emotional strings aside, yeah. That guy is the victim of a homicide. It’s a fact. Just because the victim was impalatable won’t change that fact. The example isn’t great anyway because the dynamics of victimization are more bilateral.



Yes he’s the victim of homicide. But the question is: is he victim of murder? Substantial difference.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> This provides some elements albeit from a different angle. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3213&context=sdlr
> 
> This is from a judge: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/o...ding-the-term-victim-helps-ensure-fair-trials





SuperMatt said:


> I found the following documents in the McMichael trial (accused of killing Ahmaud Arbery).
> 
> A motion by defense to prevent the word “victim” being used to refer to Arbery:
> 
> 
> https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/69155/44-Motion-in-limne
> 
> 
> 
> The recommendation to deny the motion by the state:
> 
> 
> https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/69577/44-States-Response-to-Def-Motion-in-Limine-to-Exclude-the-Use-of-the-Word-Victim
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot seem to find the judge’s final order on this. I will keep looking. However, the judge preemptively banning the word without the defense filing a motion? That seems to be abnormal.



Thank you @yaxomoxay and @SuperMatt ! Excellent articles, each making a set of my points:
1. Avoiding the term victim is not universal practice
2. Avoiding the term victim is not part of the legal standard practice in most states, including Wisconsin
3. Avoiding the term victim is more debatable where victimization is alleged, less so where it's pre-evident
4. The utilization of the term victim does not _necessarily_ imply that a crime was committed
5. The term victim is poorly characterized in law

Which takes us back to this matter, where my primary point is that this is highly subjective and we should avoid describing it as something objective. Just look at the "statistical" analysis on gender-based perceptions of guilt based on using "complaining witness" vs. "victim" in the Conklin article. The person who wrote that has no idea about how to conduct a study.

Rudy Giuliani once said about COVID that "there are many opinions in science, many state something and many state the opposite". I got a great laugh at it because he confused science with law. In science you can test hypotheses, in law; well, you cite precedents... But I digress.



Renzatic said:


> In a situation where no one is clearly guilty or innocent per the law, the world victim could be used to introduce bias against the defense. Since this judge has enforced this rule in similar situations previously, it's not something I'm overly hung up on.



And @Renzatic's point wins out. Internal consistency is the key. But that should be fully consistent.


----------



## SuperMatt

Why would the judge prevent a video of Rittenhouse saying he wishes he had his rifle to deal with shoplifters at CVS just 15 days before he allegedly killed people with said rifle? Doesn’t that go to intent? I think this judge should have let the jury hear that. They allowed this type of evidence in the Jan 6 cases… in fact it was critical evidence, indicating the people planned to attack the Capitol. Not sure if the prosecution will appeal if they lose, but this judge’s decision alone could allow for it.









						Kyle Rittenhouse dreamed about shooting people days before Kenosha: video
					

Prosecutors want to use a video at trial that caught Kyle Rittenhouse fantasizing about gunning down a man just 15 days before he shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.




					nypost.com


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> Why would the judge prevent a video of Rittenhouse saying he wishes he had his rifle to deal with shoplifters at CVS just 15 days before he allegedly killed people with said rifle? Doesn’t that go to intent? I think this judge should have let the jury hear that. They allowed this type of evidence in the Jan 6 cases… in fact it was critical evidence, indicating the people planned to attack the Capitol. Not sure if the prosecution will appeal if they lose, but this judge’s decision alone could allow for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse dreamed about shooting people days before Kenosha: video
> 
> 
> Prosecutors want to use a video at trial that caught Kyle Rittenhouse fantasizing about gunning down a man just 15 days before he shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com



Umm. So whose fucking gun was that again?


----------



## GermanSuplex

I bet this kid’s tears will dissipate quickly once he gets acquitted of all charges and is free to bask in his right-wing celebrity.

He’ll be a hero on Fox for a few months until he does something disgusting. I’ve seen this tape play out on Fox before with their previous heroes like Zimmerman and Cliven Bundy.

I would love to see a social experiment where people react to what they think is real footage of a similar circumstance Rittenhouse was in, where everything is recreated, except the underage person toting a rifle is a black teen.


----------



## yaxomoxay

GermanSuplex said:


> I bet this kid’s tears will dissipate quickly once he gets acquitted of all charges and is free to bask in his right-wing celebrity.
> 
> He’ll be a hero on Fox for a few months until he does something disgusting. I’ve seen this tape play out on Fox before with their previous heroes like Zimmerman and Cliven Bundy.
> 
> I would love to see a social experiment where people react to what they think is real footage of a similar circumstance Rittenhouse was in, where everything is recreated, except the underage person toting a rifle is a black teen.



It would actually be an interesting experiment. It would also be nice to mix races like black shoots white, black shoots black, white shoots black, and white shoots white (like in this case).
Actually, it’s pretty ingenious.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> Umm. So whose fucking gun was that again?



He’s spoken about his “AR” before and there are pictures of him holding it. Then I see people saying that somebody in Wisconsin gave it to him the day of the shootings? He even referred to it as “his” during today‘s testimony.

One thing I just read: the judge called a recess when Rittenhouse started to cry on the stand. That is biased IMHO, leaving the jury with a memory of poor, crying Kyle instead of letting the cross-examination continue. He is not the victim! The judge seems to be “in the bag“ for the defense for this one.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> One thing I just read: the judge called a recess when Rittenhouse started to cry on the stand. That is biased IMHO, leaving the jury with a memory of poor, crying Kyle instead of letting the cross-examination continue. He is not the victim! The judge seems to be “in the bag“ for the defense for this one.



Yes it’s true. I found it odd. I wonder if he did it precisely to avoid 20 minutes of a teary eyed testimony which would’ve probably biased the jury even more. Fyi He interrupted the defense argument.


----------



## User.45

GermanSuplex said:


> I would love to see a social experiment where people react to what they think is real footage of a similar circumstance Rittenhouse was in, where everything is recreated, except the underage person toting a rifle is a black teen.



we all know what that would be like.


----------



## GermanSuplex

More infuriating than watching this kid skate free and clear after killing two people will be his racist flunkies on the right like Don Jr. and Matt Gaetz celebrate. These nut jobs are fueling gun violence by glorifying this type of behavior. For people who claim to be conservatives, they must have forgotten the advice of their elders - like “you were looking for trouble and you found it”.

Of course, they seem to remember that just fine anytime the cops gun down a person of color for some minor misdemeanor offense. Or for no reason at all. These lunatics can not explain why they think the Rittenhouse killings AND the murder of George Floyd were both justified. That’s a gap they can’t bridge, but I’m sure they’d come up with some lame reason.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Yes it’s true. I found it odd. I wonder if he did it precisely to avoid 20 minutes of a teary eyed testimony which would’ve probably biased the jury even more. Fyi He interrupted the defense argument.



You could be right… but usually I would imagine it is usually a victim (can we use that word?) on the stand suffering emotional trauma. Kind of weird for the defendant to get a mental health break…


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> It would actually be an interesting experiment. It would also be nice to mix races like black shoots white, black shoots black, white shoots black, and white shoots white (like in this case).
> Actually, it’s pretty ingenious.



We already know the answer to this experiment from implicit bias studies.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> He’s spoken about his “AR” before and there are pictures of him holding it. Then I see people saying that somebody in Wisconsin gave it to him the day of the shootings? He even referred to it as “his” during today‘s testimony.



This is what I'm gently eluding to. It was HIS gun.



yaxomoxay said:


> Yes it’s true. I found it odd. I wonder if he did it precisely to avoid 20 minutes of a teary eyed testimony which would’ve probably biased the jury even more. Fyi He interrupted the defense argument.



And he was really hurting the defense's credibility. Imagine concurrent lawyer commentary.


----------



## yaxomoxay

yaxomoxay said:


> This is probably my last post on the topic for a bit.



so much for sticking to the plan.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> so much for sticking to the plan.



We're all guilty I was planning to wait out until this is over. 

Prosecution does appear to be atrocious. Like the Call of Duty question, where KR almost LOL'd.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> We're all guilty I was planning to wait out until this is over.




 


P_X said:


> Prosecution does appear to be atrocious. Like the Call of Duty question, where KR almost LOL'd.



That was stupid. First of all the line of questioning is idiotic and backfired, but If a single member of the jury is a video gamer or has a son/daughter (very likely) that is they will feel personally attacked.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> That was stupid. First of all the line of questioning is idiotic and backfired, but If a single member of the jury is a video gamer or has a son/daughter (very likely) that is they will feel personally attacked.



I'm a hardcore pacifist (I suspect it's quite evident from my post history), but I still play(ed) a lot of CoD because it's soothing.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> I'm a hardcore pacifist (I suspect it's quite evident from my post history), but I still play(ed) a lot of CoD because it's soothing.



Well, let’s rejoice that they had no time to discuss the true culprit, Dungeons & Dragons.


----------



## SuperMatt

Even The NY Times is on Rittenhouse’s side???









						New York Times article lionizes Kyle Rittenhouse for his "bravery and service" | Boing Boing
					

The New York Times has an unusually cozy relationship with white nationalists. The paper has a long history of normalizing neo-Nazis (“In person, his Midwestern manners would please anyone’s …




					boingboing.net


----------



## SuperMatt

This judge…









						The Rittenhouse judge channels his inner-MAGA man more than once | Boing Boing
					

Cut from the same cloth as rabid white MAGA men like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and the late Rush Limbaugh, Judge Bruce Schroeder of the Rittenhouse trial cannot contain his pent-up rage. In eac…




					boingboing.net


----------



## lizkat

yaxomoxay said:


> Well, let’s rejoice that they had no time to discuss the true culprit, Dungeons & Dragons.




Hell I thought it was Zork.


----------



## Eric

I've been struggling to find unbiased coverage of this thing as I don't have time for all the play by play but it seems that it's just too polarized. I don't care of it's a defense attorney or a prosecutor on either side of the aisle, I would just like to get unbiased feedback. 

Yes, my personal opinions are biased but I always try to look for neutral coverage on anything high profile like this.

Dan Abrams seems to do okay with that but it's really just a segment on the evening news, I'll have to take it for now.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> Even The NY Times is on Rittenhouse’s side???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New York Times article lionizes Kyle Rittenhouse for his "bravery and service" | Boing Boing
> 
> 
> The New York Times has an unusually cozy relationship with white nationalists. The paper has a long history of normalizing neo-Nazis (“In person, his Midwestern manners would please anyone’s …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boingboing.net




I've read the NYT since the 1940s, and believe that both it and I have evolved somewhat for the better since then.   By that I mean not least that both the NYT and I now see phrases like "atom bomb" and "social value" differently.

But in the past 15 years I've started to think that if I do sometime cancel my sub to the Gray Lady,  and if they do ask why I'm leaving,  my answer will simply be "I'm not in your targeted readership any more and finally realize it."

See I'm not really sure what the hell the Times is going for lately.   I seek a paper of record, a chronicler of our times, a paper that still understands that at core we must only seek the truth,  even if it not to our liking.   It is after all potentially fatal to paint over some disliked ugliness in the human condition with the gloss of a few carefully selected adjectives, or perhaps moving something from page A3 to page A14.

Keats at the wrap of his "Ode to a Grecian Urn" wrote that
​_“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all_​_Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know._​​But nowadays the Times seems not unlike plenty of other media outlets, offering what it hopes this or that reader will at least for today be content to label for themselves as the beauty of truth in some section...  yes,  a pleasing echo of one's own thoughts is perfect.

That must be what truth is, eh?  Whatever I like best?  I like world news, dance and book reviews best.​
And --leaving aside the dwindling print circulation--  the NY Times has over five million digital subscribers and god knows how many kibitzers and glance-in artists who see some of its reporting via discussion in social media.   If everyone is to find his bliss in the paper, then god help us all. That's not actually what a newspaper is about.  And so I slog through the reporting on politics and the agonies of assorted sports teams.  So far our proclivity towards The Big Lie seems to stop a little short of the sports stats, as it's still impossible for every team to win

But in short the godblasted paper seems all over the map to me lately,  and not just in its selection of Op-Eds and columnists but in its writing and even selection of items on which to publish news articles.   And it has gone mealy-mouthed when covering anything remotely viewable as "controversial" in the political arena.  For that approach to migrate off the opinion pages into the hard news section is disappointing to say the least.

Heh, was there a time the paper castigated Trump for having gone on about "good people on both sides" back during the aftermath of Charlottesville?   They must have got too close to him while trying to hear his explanations.

On Rittenhouse, well..  there is video so we do get to see what the Times is seeing, and it's hard to tell whether it's the defense, the prosecution, the accused or the judge who is more aware that "the world is watching".   I'm not at all sure anyone's seeking the beauty of truth here.   The circus is pretty entertaining though,  if one can detach from the disappointing humanity of it all.   Still waiting for the Times to chronicle that part for us.


----------



## SuperMatt

lizkat said:


> On Rittenhouse, well.. there is video so we do get to see what the Times is seeing, and it's hard to tell whether it's the defense, the prosecution, the accused or the judge who is more aware that "the world is watching".



The judge seems to be auditioning for his own “Judge Schroeder“ TV show.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> The judge seems to be auditioning for his own “Judge Schroeder“ TV show.




Reality TV come full circle.  Real people in real circumstances figuring they know how to play it.


----------



## User.45

lizkat said:


> I've read the NYT since the 1940s, and believe that both it and I have evolved somewhat for the better since then.   By that I mean not least that both the NYT and I now see phrases like "atom bomb" and "social value" differently.
> 
> But in the past 15 years I've started to think that if I do sometime cancel my sub to the Gray Lady,  and if they do ask why I'm leaving,  my answer will simply be "I'm not in your targeted readership any more and finally realize it."
> 
> See I'm not really sure what the hell the Times is going for lately.   I seek a paper of record, a chronicler of our times, a paper that still understands that at core we must only seek the truth,  even if it not to our liking.   It is after all potentially fatal to paint over some disliked ugliness in the human condition with the gloss of a few carefully selected adjectives, or perhaps moving something from page A3 to page A14.
> 
> Keats at the wrap of his "Ode to a Grecian Urn" wrote that
> ​_“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all_​_Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know._​​But nowadays the Times seems not unlike plenty of other media outlets, offering what it hopes this or that reader will at least for today be content to label for themselves as the beauty of truth in some section...  yes,  a pleasing echo of one's own thoughts is perfect.
> 
> That must be what truth is, eh?  Whatever I like best?  I like world news, dance and book reviews best.​
> And --leaving aside the dwindling print circulation--  the NY Times has over five million digital subscribers and god knows how many kibitzers and glance-in artists who see some of its reporting via discussion in social media.   If everyone is to find his bliss in the paper, then god help us all. That's not actually what a newspaper is about.  And so I slog through the reporting on politics and the agonies of assorted sports teams.  So far our proclivity towards The Big Lie seems to stop a little short of the sports stats, as it's still impossible for every team to win
> 
> But in short the godblasted paper seems all over the map to me lately,  and not just in its selection of Op-Eds and columnists but in its writing and even selection of items on which to publish news articles.   And it has gone mealy-mouthed when covering anything remotely viewable as "controversial" in the political arena.  For that approach to migrate off the opinion pages into the hard news section is disappointing to say the least.
> 
> Heh, was there a time the paper castigated Trump for having gone on about "good people on both sides" back during the aftermath of Charlottesville?   They must have got too close to him while trying to hear his explanations.
> 
> On Rittenhouse, well..  there is video so we do get to see what the Times is seeing, and it's hard to tell whether it's the defense, the prosecution, the accused or the judge who is more aware that "the world is watching".   I'm not at all sure anyone's seeking the beauty of truth here.   The circus is pretty entertaining though,  if one can detach from the disappointing humanity of it all.   Still waiting for the Times to chronicle that part for us.



NYT screams Ivy League English major verbosity. I have a sub but I don’t have 10minutes to read an article that beyond ornamental wording contains a few sentences worth of information. And I dunno, I’m not a fast reader, but by now i think I mastered the art of processing large amounts of info quickly and what a lot of the NYT articles try to achieve just work better in an investigative TV format.




Eric said:


> I've been struggling to find unbiased coverage of this thing as I don't have time for all the play by play but it seems that it's just too polarized. I don't care of it's a defense attorney or a prosecutor on either side of the aisle, I would just like to get unbiased feedback.
> 
> Yes, my personal opinions are biased but I always try to look for neutral coverage on anything high profile like this.
> 
> Dan Abrams seems to do okay with that but it's really just a segment on the evening news, I'll have to take it for now.



I find this trial crazy too, but again. Someone pointed it out on reddit for a non-American how fucking absurd it is to argue about minute details about a shooting when the guy brought a weapon half his height to a protest. Where i grew up, you couldn’t personally  own a gun like that even if you’re SWAT, and it would be a felony on it’s own to walk around with it on your shoulder. So we have baseline insanity.

It also makes me wonder, that all these hot takes and poorly substantiated opinions are the legal version of the misperceptions that people had when they first ever watched medical evidence being generated real-time for CoVid. I don’t know.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> It also makes me wonder, that all these hot takes and poorly substantiated opinions are the legal version of the misperceptions that people had when they first ever watched medical evidence being generated real-time for CoVid. I don’t know.



I think that we’re observing the worst of the worst: there are now so many cameras that record every single minute of every single interaction, that immediately go on social media and such, and instead of clarifying things everyone sees what they want to see. Another reason why my love with technology is almost gone.

It’s kind of like blurry UFO videos.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> I find this trial crazy too, but again. Someone pointed it out on reddit for a non-American how fucking absurd it is to argue about minute details about a shooting when the guy brought a weapon half his height to a protest.



Ethically, yes it’s a discussion to have. As for this trial, it has nothing to do with it. Not even the prosecution hinted that the possession of the firearm is grounds to the claim that what follows is a crime. Only people that don’t know that basic law try to make this point.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> I think that we’re observing the worst of the worst: there are now so many cameras that record every single minute of every single interaction, that immediately go on social media and such, and instead of clarifying things everyone sees what they want to see. Another reason why my love with technology is almost gone.
> 
> It’s kind of like blurry UFO videos.



That's a shared sentiment. Though my excitement was in part fueled by the hope of finally being able to see good quality extraterrestrial videos. It turns out, the little green bastards always know where the cameras are!


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> Ethically, yes it’s a discussion to have. As for this trial, it has nothing to do with it. Not even the prosecution hinted that the possession of the firearm is grounds to the claim that what follows is a crime. Only people that don’t know that basic law try to make this point.



You're correct, it's a point that isn't directly about the present governing law. But you're incorrect about it being solely a philosophical discussion. It's a sociology/criminology discussion and how the law may or may not fail at representing the _truth _or the interests of society. 
Reminder figure:


----------



## yaxomoxay

I meant it as that the ethical thing to do is to have the conversation.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Heard the judge crack a joke about Asian food. Which was oddly about the backlog of cargo… seems a little racist and political. But then again, the judge is already treating Rittenhouse as if he’s his favorite son, so I guess no big deal, the fix is already in.

The law is openly supporting white male vigilantes. It doesn’t matter who engages who, if you’re armed, you are free to kill the moment you’re confronted. We’re watching a blueprint for legalized murder play out.


----------



## SuperMatt

GermanSuplex said:


> Heard the judge crack a joke about Asian food. Which was oddly about the backlog of cargo… seems a little racist and political. But then again, the judge is already treating Rittenhouse as if he’s his favorite son, so I guess no big deal, the fix is already in.
> 
> The law is openly supporting white male vigilantes. It doesn’t matter who engages who, if you’re armed, you are free to kill the moment you’re confronted. We’re watching a blueprint for legalized murder play out.



I just read about it. A joke targeting Asian people for sure.

My guess is multiple people on the jury see the protesters as outsiders and Kyle as defending the town from them.

I don’t agree with life in prison (for crimes in general) but the kid needs rehabilitation or IMHO he will re-offend.


----------



## GermanSuplex

SuperMatt said:


> I just read about it. A joke targeting Asian people for sure.
> 
> My guess is multiple people on the jury see the protesters as outsiders and Kyle as defending the town from them.
> 
> I don’t agree with life in prison (for crimes in general) but the kid needs rehabilitation or IMHO he will re-offend.




I’m worried about what it means for copycat killers. The judicial system is laying out blueprints for people who engage in this dangerous behavior to face no consequences.With Zimmerman and now this kid, it shows it doesnt matter who is the aggressor, it only matters who is armed.
Imagine if a looter burned a building down because they “threw a molotov cocktail out of fear”. OK, but what the hell are you doing around a scene of unrest with improvised explosives?

At some point, common sense has to prevail. I guarantee the narrative from the right would be different if
everything was the same, but Rittenhouse was a supporter of BLM and the people he killed were wearing MAGA hats. And I bet the judge would behave different as well.


----------



## yaxomoxay

GermanSuplex said:


> Imagine if a looter burned a building down because they “threw a molotov cocktail out of fear”. OK, but what the hell are you doing around a scene of unrest with improvised explosives?



While I do share the same perplexities about what the result will do in the future, and while I share many many perplexities about the prosecution, the above case is not similar. Now, is there a scenario in which self defense would be applicable? Yes. If someone is pointing a gun at you, that is seriously threatening you while you just have the bottle in your hand, unlit, you would be more than justified in throwing the Molotov cocktail at that person. The fact that you have an illegal weapon with you is irrelevant if not for character determination (and even here it’s limited). On the same token, if you have a lit bottle and are clearly motioning to throw it at an individual with a gun (legal or illegal), the individual would have the right to shoot you. Granted, we’re talking in generic terms and there are a bazillion things to consider. The bottom line is that a previous act doesn’t automatically imply a duty to die or be injured.


----------



## GermanSuplex

yaxomoxay said:


> While I do share the same perplexities about what the result will do in the future, and while I share many many perplexities about the prosecution, the above case is not similar. Now, is there a scenario in which self defense would be applicable? Yes. If someone is pointing a gun at you, that is seriously threatening you while you just have the bottle in your hand, unlit, you would be more than justified in throwing the Molotov cocktail at that person. The fact that you have an illegal weapon with you, is irrelevant if not for character determination (and even here it’s limited). On the same token, if you have a lit bottle and are clearly motioning about throwing it at an individual with a gun (legal or illegal), the individual would have the right to shoot you. Granted, we’re talking in generic terms and there are a bazillion things to consider. The bottom line is that a previous act doesn’t automatically imply a duty to die or be injured.




I didn’t get too far into the weeds in my example, but the larger point is actions should have consequences. Maybe the men would be alive had they not confronted Rittenhouse. They’d also be alive if Rittenhouse hadn’t illegally armed himself and headed to a different town that was full of civil unrest. 

Many people are rotting in prison for acts less egregious than those of Rittenhouse. Many of them simply for being with someone who did something heinous and not partaking in the act itself… the judicial punishment for “well,
you shouldn’t have been hanging with them in the first place”.

I don’t know what the 100% proper outcome should be, but there should be serious repercussions for his actions.


----------



## yaxomoxay

GermanSuplex said:


> I didn’t get too far into the weeds in my example, but the larger point is actions should have consequences. Maybe the men would be alive had they not confronted Rittenhouse. They’d also be alive if Rittenhouse hadn’t illegally armed himself and headed to a different town that was full of civil unrest.
> 
> Many people are rotting in prison for acts less egregious than those of Rittenhouse. Many of them simply for being with someone who did something heinous and not partaking in the act itself… the judicial punishment for “well,
> you shouldn’t have been hanging with them in the first place”.
> 
> I don’t know what the 100% proper outcome should be, but there should be serious repercussions for his actions.



And I have no desire - or even a need - to push back to your evaluation of the situation and what’s going to happen after the outcome of the trial (for the record, I do share some concern with you) whatever it will be. 

However it’s important to make sure we’re all clear that - generically speaking - the act of carrying a weapon illegally doesn’t automatically eliminate self defense rights as some people claim. I see lots of confusion about this claim online, which is very basic law. That’s my simple, repetitive and boring point.


----------



## GermanSuplex

yaxomoxay said:


> And I have no desire - or even a need - to push back to your evaluation of the situation and what’s going to happen after the outcome of the trial (for the record, I do share some concern with you) whatever it will be.
> 
> However it’s important to make sure we’re all clear that - generically speaking - the act of carrying a weapon illegally doesn’t automatically eliminate self defense rights as some people claim. I see lots of confusion about this claim online, which is very basic law. That’s my simple, repetitive and boring point.




We’re mostly on the same page. I’m aware him being illegally armed doesn’t automatically make him guilty should he fire the weapon, or even kill. Which is why I’m upset at the judge for not allowing a “big picture” view of the case. The circumstances matter, And we’ve seen cases where the aggressor is also the armed one, and they still get off too (Zimmerman). And I’m aware there’s nuances in differences between state laws, what jury you get, competency of the judges, etc.

But we really need to do something about these vigilantes handing out their own brand of justice. Being illegally armed may not automatically override his right to self-defense (and I don’t believe it should), but it shouldn’t also guarantee it as it seemingly is doing in this trial. His prior words and actions, as well as him interjecting himself into a scene of unrest, should play a role.

If he gets off, and it looks like he will, he should be sued civilly by the families of those he killed for millions, and the courts should seize any money he makes from the right who will continue to treat this guy like a hero.

It’s reckless conduct with a dangerous, lethal weapon, and that should matter and have consequences. The charges matter too, and while I personally don’t think the prosecutors overcharged, they haven’t done a good job of proving the case. The judge is largely to blame for that too. I won’t blame the jury for acquitting Rittenhouse, but it’s another miscarriage of justice if he avoids prison.


----------



## yaxomoxay

GermanSuplex said:


> But we really need to do something about these vigilantes handing out their own brand of justice.




I am with you 100% on this.



GermanSuplex said:


> Being illegally armed may not automatically override his right to self-defense (and I don’t believe it should), but it shouldn’t also guarantee it as it seemingly is doing in this trial.




Again, 100% agreed. As for this trial, the prosecution is just failing, miserably, at making any claim other than self defense. A question I have is: did they overcharge him? With all the footage and testimonies, they have no case (or, at least they’re awful at presenting it) for murder. So why did they go for those high charges?



GermanSuplex said:


> His prior words and actions, as well as him interjecting himself into a scene of unrest, should play a role.



It does play a role, but it’s difficult to say that in an area without police an individual has no right to self defense. What a mess. What a mess.



GermanSuplex said:


> If he gets off, and it looks like he will, he should be sued civilly by the families of those he killed for millions,



Agreed.



GermanSuplex said:


> and the courts should seize any money he makes from the right who will continue to treat this guy like a hero.




Bit more difficult but I understand the feeling.




GermanSuplex said:


> It’s reckless conduct with a dangerous, lethal weapon, and that should matter and have consequences.



Well, that’s what the court will decide. If he was my son I’d slap him so hard he’d ask the jury to be sent to Guantanamo. Legally, he _might_ be in the right.



GermanSuplex said:


> The charges matter too, and while I personally don’t think the prosecutors overcharged, they haven’t done a good job of proving the case.



See my perplexity above.


----------



## Herdfan

yaxomoxay said:


> Again, 100% agreed. As for this trial, the prosecution is just failing, miserably, at making any claim other than self defense. A question I have is: did they overcharge him? With all the footage and testimonies, they have no case (or, at least they’re awful at presenting it) for murder. So why did they go for those high charges?




Read just a bit ago that the prosecution and defense are arguing over whether to allow additional lesser charges to be added.

I didn't think you could do this in the middle of the trial.  Prosecution must know they are about to lose on the higher ones.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Herdfan said:


> Read just a bit ago that the prosecution and defense are arguing over whether to allow additional lesser charges to be added.
> 
> I didn't think you could do this in the middle of the trial.  Prosecution must know they are about to lose on the higher ones.



My imperfect understanding: They can add them but they have to be directly linked to the major charges that started the trial. 

Man, it’s a tough one. I am glad I am not part of that jury.


----------



## GermanSuplex

yaxomoxay said:


> My imperfect understanding: They can add them but they have to be directly linked to the major charges that started the trial.
> 
> Man, it’s a tough one. I am glad I am not part of that jury.




And I just see on the news the judge has denied the prosecution’s request to allow the jury to consider lesser charges. This after him also kneecapping them on evidence and language. And his “Asian food” joke. And his Trump-campaign song for s ringtone. As mentioned, any of his decisions in and of themselves can be explained away, but as a whole, he sure does look biased in favor of the defendant.


----------



## yaxomoxay

GermanSuplex said:


> And I just see on the news the judge has denied the prosecution’s request to allow the jury to consider lesser charges.



Not really. He denied some, he accepted some. Mr Rittenhouse agreed with his counsel too in accepting the lesser charges even if - as the judge explained - it means higher chance of conviction.



GermanSuplex said:


> This after him also kneecapping them on evidence and language.



Today the judge accepted all of the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the now famous blurry video. By the way during the request for the acceptance of the evidence the prosecution messed up multiple times, but the judge allowed it because it’s part of the jury duty to see that type of evidence and decide if it’s reliable. This is major because according to the prosecution it invites the idea that Mr Rittenhouse provoked first.



> And his “Asian food” joke. And his Trump-campaign song for s ringtone. As mentioned, any of his decisions in and of themselves can be explained away, but as a whole, he sure does look biased in favor of the defendant.




That’s not a “trump campaign song”. It’s a song that was used by trump and precedes Trump by many years. Same way of YMCA by the Village People which was used ad nauseam by Trump among other songs. Personally I’d add a constitutional amendment (!!!!) stating that political candidates can’t use popular song that have not been produced by the campaign itself. I hate to be identified as supporting a candidate simply because I might be listening to a song.


----------



## SuperMatt

GermanSuplex said:


> And I just see on the news the judge has denied the prosecution’s request to allow the jury to consider lesser charges. This after him also kneecapping them on evidence and language. And his “Asian food” joke. And his Trump-campaign song for s ringtone. As mentioned, any of his decisions in and of themselves can be explained away, but as a whole, he sure does look biased in favor of the defendant.



As somebody who has to regularly perform Lee Greenwood’s famous song, I’m a bit sad to hear that it is being associated with Trump. It is a bit nationalistic, but is from the 80s and I thought it was supposed to be a song for all Americans. It’s always been popular with military audiences in my experience.

As for the rest of the judge’s conduct, it is appalling.


----------



## GermanSuplex

yaxomoxay said:


> Not really. He denied some, he accepted some. Mr Rittenhouse agreed with his counsel too in accepting the lesser charges even if - as the judge explained - it means higher chance of conviction.
> 
> 
> Today the judge accepted all of the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the now famous blurry video. By the way during the request for the acceptance of the evidence the prosecution messed up multiple times, but the judge allowed it because it’s part of the jury duty to see that type of evidence and decide if it’s reliable. This is major because according to the prosecution it invites the idea that Mr Rittenhouse provoked first.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not a “trump campaign song”. It’s a song that was used by trump and precedes Trump by many years. Same way of YMCA by the Village People which was used ad nauseam by Trump among other songs. Personally I’d add a constitutional amendment (!!!!) stating that political candidates can’t use popular song that have not been produced by the campaign itself. I hate to be identified as supporting a candidate simply because I might be listening to a song.




I know the song is a popular song and I’ve heard it long before Trump, but it goes back to what I said about any one incident being able to be explained away, but taken as a whole it paints a picture.

I’m glad the judge did allow some counts to have lesser charges considered; I originally was under the impression it was denied for all counts.

I think it’s important here for the jury to be allowed lesser charges because these all or nothing verdicts in these crimes with gray areas give legal precedent for others to commit copycat crimes in the future, and I definitely don’t want Rittenhouse’s actions giving anyone else any crazy ideas.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> As somebody who has to regularly perform Lee Greenwood’s famous song,



I think it spread like wildfire after 9/11, understandably so. Calling it a “Trump campaign song” is reductive at best. It was played at the Naturalization Ceremony right after my oath as a new American. (President was Obama)


----------



## yaxomoxay

GermanSuplex said:


> I think it’s important here for the jury to be allowed lesser charges because these all or nothing verdicts in these crimes with gray areas give legal precedent for others to commit copycat crimes




And again, we’re in full agreement.


----------



## JayMysteri0

GermanSuplex said:


> And I just see on the news the judge has denied the prosecution’s request to allow the jury to consider lesser charges. This after him also kneecapping them on evidence and language. And his “Asian food” joke. And his Trump-campaign song for s ringtone. As mentioned, any of his decisions in and of themselves can be explained away, but as a whole, he sure does look biased in favor of the defendant.



Yeah, the judge's behavior in this case is becoming increasingly a topic of this case, as much as the case itself.

From his admonishments & commentary seemingly directed at ONLY the prosecution.  His outburst with the prosecutor about not getting "brazen" with him was probably the 2nd most over the top performance behind the kid's "Kavanaugh" imitation.  The judge's wanting applause for a defense witness who is a veteran.  Yes it was Veteran's day, but such observations are for OUTSIDE of the court, and the fact it was for a defense witness is a bit eyebrow raising.  The whole thing with the video was a bit of a head scratching moment.  When the verdict is delivered, this case is going to be known for the results as well as the judge.  Something that is not supposed to happen.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1458863953216512007/


----------



## yaxomoxay

JayMysteri0 said:


> Yeah, the judge's behavior in this case is becoming increasingly a topic of this case, as much as the case itself.
> 
> From his admonishments & commentary seemingly directed at ONLY the prosecution.  His outburst with the prosecutor about not getting "brazen" with him was probably the 2nd most over the top performance behind the kid's "Kavanaugh" imitation.  The judge's wanting applause for a defense witness who is a veteran.  Yes it was Veteran's day, but such observations are for OUTSIDE of the court, and the fact it was for a defense witness is a bit eyebrow raising.  The whole thing with the video was a bit of a head scratching moment.  When the verdict is delivered, this case is going to be known for the results as well as the judge.  Something that is not supposed to happen.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1458863953216512007/



I am sorry but no. The judge was 100% right in that instance. First going after 5th Amendment rights and then defying a direct court order? And then talking back pretending he didn’t know what it all meant? I am sorry but no, you can’t put that on the judge. The prosecution has been abysmal and what the prosecutor was doing went well beyond any legitimacy. I was appalled myself before even the judge intervened (on the V amendment issue).

You also got it wrong on the veteran. He asked - on veteran’s day - if anyone in the room was a veteran. The witness was a veteran. Hence the applause. It was generic for all veterans. It’s not that the judge said “he’s a veteran, applaud him”.

I recommend watching the various hours of the actual trial over basing judgment on a few tweets and snippets.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Personally I’d add a constitutional amendment (!!!!) stating that political candidates can’t use popular song that have not been produced by the campaign itself. I hate to be identified as supporting a candidate simply because I might be listening to a song.




Let me call my local representative. We'll start this convention.

...oh wait, no. Not a good idea. Forgot who my representative was for a second.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> Let me call my local representative. We'll start this convention.
> 
> ...oh wait, no. Not a good idea. Forgot who my representative was for a second.



The only song that should be allowed, for all candidates, is “Nixon Now”. It’s incredibly catchy, and if you don’t believe me just check it on YouTube. It will stay in your head until you die, or even after.


----------



## JayMysteri0

yaxomoxay said:


> I am sorry but no. The judge was 100% right in that instance. First going after 5th Amendment rights and then defying a direct court order? And then talking back pretending he didn’t know what it all meant? I am sorry but no, you can’t put that on the judge. The prosecution has been abysmal and what the prosecutor was doing went well beyond and legitimacy. I was appalled myself before even the judge intervened (on the V amendment issue).
> 
> You also got it wrong on the veteran. He asked - on veteran’s day - if anyone in the room was a veteran. The witness was a veteran. Hence the applause. It was generic for all veterans. It’s not that the judge said “he’s a veteran, applaud him”.
> 
> I recommend watching the various hours of the actual trial over basing judgment on a few tweets and snippets.



It was histronics that he made a scene of it.  He may have been right according to him, but there's making a point, and there's showmanship.

The Judge asked for the applause.


> https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rittenhouse-trial-judge-requests-applause-074429161.html





> Wisconsin Judge Bruce Schroeder took some criticism Thursday after requesting during the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial in Kenosha that attendees applaud for the nation’s service members on Veterans Day.
> 
> During a moment in the day’s proceedings, Schroeder asked if any veterans were present in the courtroom. Only John Black, a use-of-force expert who was later called to the witness stand by the defense, claimed to have served in the military, identifying himself as an Army veteran, The Associated Press reported.




*"I think we give a round of applause to the people who’ve served our country," Schroeder then said, drawing a few moments of clapping from those in attendance, including the jurors.*



> Rittenhouse legal expert: I've never seen a judge act like this in a criminal trial.
> 
> 
> In 27 years of criminal law practice, I've never seen a trial judge tell a jury to applaud a defense witness right before they take the stand.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usatoday.com





> In the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial, Judge Bruce Schroeder began the day on Thursday asking everyone in the courtroom, including the jury, if they had served in the military.  As it turned out, the only military veteran in the courtroom who spoke up was the defense expert on use-of-force, John Black.* Schroeder then motioned to the jury, and said that he thinks that everyone should give a “round of applause to the people who have served,” while gesturing back over toward Black. *
> 
> I have been a criminal law attorney for 27 years. I was both a federal and state prosecutor, and defense attorney. In all my years of practice, I have never seen a trial judge during a trial put the jury in a position where they would have to applaud a defense witness right before they are about to take the stand and testify.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> It will stay in your head until you die, or even after.




I was going to, but then you added this quip in. Now I'm not sure I'd want to.


----------



## yaxomoxay

JayMysteri0 said:


> It was histronics that he made a scene of it.  He may have been right according to him, but there's making a point, and there's showmanship.



It wasn’t showmanship. The prosecutor kept going, and kept interrupting. And each time, every single time, the jury has to be kicked out of the room. The prosecutor has to be thankful he wasn’t officially reprimanded with consequence. Asking someone - and insisting - why they wanted to keep the right to remain silent, in front of the jury. Insane. Utterly insane. I am left wondering how many times stuff like that happen in lesser trials. Then - with another witness - he proceeded into questioning why the witness wanted legal counsel. Dude should go back to law school. Insane, and insulting. 



JayMysteri0 said:


> The Judge asked for the applause



Yes. But he didn’t ask the applause “for the witness”. He asked it for all veterans and accidentally the witness was a veteran. I am not agreeing with the judge on the applause itself (useless, superfluous and inappropriate), but the claim that he did it for the witness is misleading at best.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> I was going to, but then you added this quip in. Now I'm not sure I'd want to.



Do it. Live the dangerous life. You’ll thank me. All of it, once. That’s all you need. 
No wonder he carried so many states.


----------



## JayMysteri0

yaxomoxay said:


> It wasn’t showmanship. The prosecutor kept going, and kept interrupting. And each time, every single time, the jury has to be kicked out of the room. The prosecutor has to be thankful he wasn’t officially reprimanded with consequence. Asking someone - and insisting - why they wanted to keep the right to remain silent, in front of the jury. Insane. Utterly insane. I am left wondering how many times stuff like that happen in lesser trials. Then - with another witness - he proceeded into questioning why the witness wanted legal counsel. Dude should go back to law school. Insane, and insulting.
> 
> 
> Yes. But he didn’t ask the applause “for the witness”. He asked it for all veterans and accidentally the witness was a veteran. I am not agreeing with the judge on the applause itself (useless, superfluous and inappropriate), but the claim that he did it for the witness is misleading at best.



Please don't.

He gestured, to the veteran asking for the applause.  It wasn't something necessary in the court.

I'm sure there are any number of critics who believed that was the appropriate thing to do.


----------



## yaxomoxay

JayMysteri0 said:


> Please don't.
> 
> He gestured, to the veteran asking for the applause.



He was the only veteran. 


JayMysteri0 said:


> It wasn't something necessary in the court.



Agree with this. 


JayMysteri0 said:


> I'm sure there are any number of critics who believed that was the appropriate thing to do.



Probably. I am not among those. It was inappropriate in a court of law.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Do it. Live the dangerous life. You’ll thank me. All of it, once. That’s all you need.
> No wonder he carried so many states.




Oh well. YOLO!


----------



## yaxomoxay

Going back to better and more interesting things about the case, this appears to be the jury instruction on the provocation charge. Reading it now. 

https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdfhttps://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf


----------



## JayMysteri0

yaxomoxay said:


> He was the only veteran.
> 
> Agree with this.
> 
> Probably. I am not among those. It was inappropriate in a court of law.



Which was part of the point of my post.

The judge's behavior has become as much a story of late, as the trial itself.

Which is something you do NOT want in a trial of such notice.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Please don't.
> 
> He gestured, to the veteran asking for the applause.  It wasn't something necessary in the court.
> 
> I'm sure there are any number of critics who believed that was the appropriate thing to do.



He also would have reviewed and approved any witnesses. So he definitely should have known that Dr. Black was a veteran. The guy’s website talks about his 30 years of military service. It’s part of the reason he qualified as an “expert” witness.

Kind of like bringing Terry Bradshaw onto the stand and asking “any former Steelers’ players here? Let’s give a hand to the Pittsburgh Steelers!"


----------



## yaxomoxay

JayMysteri0 said:


> Which was part of the point of my post.
> 
> The judge's behavior has become as much a story of late, as the trial itself.
> 
> Which is something you do NOT want in a trial of such notice.



Welcome to America’s way of talking about trials. That’s why I agree completely with not having television cameras at the Supreme Court.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> Kind of like bringing Terry Bradshaw onto the stand and asking “any former Steelers’ players here? Let’s give a hand to the Pittsburgh Steelers!"



Didn’t know Steelers’ day was a nationally sanctioned holiday recognized by the government. It wouldn’t fly well here in Texas by the way.


----------



## JayMysteri0

yaxomoxay said:


> Welcome to America’s way of talking about trials. That’s why I agree completely with not having television cameras at the Supreme Court.



Not a topic I was considering discussing.  But does bring up the matter of being able to see this judge in action, makes one wonder what we don't see.

Seriously after the judge's performance with the prosecution, if they left the ringer on their phone on and it played "Don't stop" by Fleetwood Mac, you don't think that judge wouldn't have lost it again?

The judge makes a case for why there should be cameras.  Again though, cameras isn't a topic I want to go on about.  The judge though...


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Going back to better and more interesting things about the case, this appears to be the jury instruction on the provocation charge. Reading it now.
> 
> https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdfhttps://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf



In reading that, the initial paragraph seems clear. But the 2nd paragraph (in brackets) circles back on itself twice. Then the other paragraphs seem to concur with the first paragraph. All in all, that document looks like it would confuse the jury more than help them. If the 2nd paragraph was taken out, I think it would be more clear. You can’t provoke somebody and then claim self-defense. Maybe this is a sign the jury can convict at least on some charges.


----------



## yaxomoxay

JayMysteri0 said:


> Not a topic I was considering discussing.  But does bring up the matter of being able to see this judge in action, makes one wonder what we don't see.
> 
> Seriously after the judge's performance with the prosecution, if they left the ringer on their phone on and it played "Don't stop" by Fleetwood Mac, you don't think that judge wouldn't have lost it again?
> 
> The judge makes a case for why there should be cameras.  Again though, cameras isn't a topic I want to go on about.  The judge though...



Just to touch on cell phones, yeah I couldn’t stand it. I understand if someone forgets once but by God. That is just rude.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> In reading that, the initial paragraph seems clear. But the 2nd paragraph (in brackets) circles back on itself twice. Then the other paragraphs seem to concur with the first paragraph. All in all, that document looks like it would confuse the jury more than help them. If the 2nd paragraph was taken out, I think it would be more clear. You can’t provoke somebody and then claim self-defense. Maybe this is a sign the jury can convict at least on some charges.



Yeah. I guess the 2nd para is to prevent a perpetual state in which self defense becomes impossible.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Critics Question Why Kyle Rittenhouse Singled Out In Kyle Rittenhouse Trial
					

KENOSHA, WI—Arguing that the prosecution had demonstrated flagrant bias throughout the proceedings, critics questioned Thursday why Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger had repeatedly singled out Kyle Rittenhouse over the course of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. “Not a day has...




					www.theonion.com


----------



## yaxomoxay

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Critics Question Why Kyle Rittenhouse Singled Out In Kyle Rittenhouse Trial
> 
> 
> KENOSHA, WI—Arguing that the prosecution had demonstrated flagrant bias throughout the proceedings, critics questioned Thursday why Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger had repeatedly singled out Kyle Rittenhouse over the course of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. “Not a day has...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theonion.com



I love The Onion.

A year or two ago for a while - like two weeks - as a test I had as the only news sources The Onion and The Babylon Bee. I am convinced, to this day, that I’ve never been so well informed like I was during that time.


----------



## GermanSuplex

The problem with The Onion is that its increasingly hard to distinguish satire from actual headlines, especially the last five years or so.

That article is not too far off the mark from reality.


----------



## JayMysteri0

A little more on the Kenosha killer kid trying to pull a 'Kavanaugh'.   <- _So much alliteration, it's awesome!_



> Kyle Rittenhouse’s tears
> 
> 
> The 18-year-old who shot three men at a protest took the stand and resorted to a tried-and-true strategy for white men in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com





> What Kyle Rittenhouse displayed in a Kenosha, Wisconsin, courtroom this week as he testified in his homicide trial was what folks like to call an “ugly cry.”
> 
> Charged in the killings of two men and injury of another amid days of racial justice protests last summer, the defendant started to falter on the stand as he described that fateful night last August, when the then-17-year-old was armed with a rifle, patrolling the streets of a town that was not his own. Rittenhouse’s eyes shut almost completely, save for an occasional glance to his left in the direction of the jury. Then came the sobbing, which kept the rest of his response to his attorney’s questioning about that evening from escaping his quivering lips.
> 
> Rittenhouse’s blubbering was the headline of the day after the defendant offered his much-awaited testimony in the case Wednesday, recalling the night he shot Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber to death and “vaporized” much of the bicep of medic Gaige Grosskreutz, according to Grosskreutz’s testimony. Rittenhouse wasn’t weeping with regret; he was claiming self-defense, and recounting how he felt his life was in danger.





> The trial and pretrial proceedings had already sparked a national outcry after Judge Bruce Schroeder decided last month that prosecutors may not refer to Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz as “victims,” and that defense attorneys could call them “looters” or “arsonists.” Now with his tears, Rittenhouse has cast himself as the lone victim in his own homicide trial.
> 
> When he wasn’t crying, Rittenhouse explained why he had traveled the roughly 20 miles from Illinois. Earlier that day, he allegedly offered “condolences” to a business owner for cars that were set afire the previous night, and he said that he and a friend agreed to help provide armed protection for the business that night. The defendant also testified that he gave a bulletproof vest in his possession — issued by the Grayslake, Illinois, police department’s Explorer program for young people interested in law enforcement careers — to a friend, saying he felt he wouldn’t need it because, he recalled in the courtroom, “I’m going to be helping people.”
> 
> 
> The Illinois teenager faces two counts of first-degree homicide and one of attempted homicide, along with three other charges in the shooting on August 25, 2020, just a couple of nights after a Kenosha police officer shot Black motorist Jacob Blake seven times in the back in front of three of his children. The killings of the demonstrators caused a national shock wave last summer, highlighting the powder keg of emotion surrounding arrests, clashes, and tense exchanges as tens of millions of Americans took to the streets to protest racial injustice






> The debate this week has centered on whether the defendant’s spectacle was authentic. Whether or not the crying was real, it was a performance, and it had an audience. Like many white men accused of violent crimes and misconduct before him, Rittenhouse appealed with his tears not merely to the 12 fellow citizens who will decide his fate, but also to certain white members of the American public who too often see emotion like that and imagine only the faces of their sons — not any born to mothers who look like mine.





> There is evidence that Rittenhouse conspicuously aligned himself with the “blue lives matter” crowd, so it’s worth considering his sobbing within the context of the toxic and limited view of manhood that remains so popular in America, particularly among the modern political right. Some compared Rittenhouse to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s reaction when questioned during his confirmation hearings about Christine Blasey Ford’s credible allegations of sexual assault. Wednesday’s display from Rittenhouse bore some similarities to Kavanaugh’s sanctimonious anger, which he often dotted with cracks in his voice. As I wrote at the time, the future Supreme Court justice took advantage of the leeway that his gender and privilege affords to him, and Rittenhouse did the same.
> 
> It is a particular privilege to be considered a “boy” after you’ve become an adult — and when you’ve made decisions like Rittenhouse’s. In Rittenhouse’s case, he was generously characterized by the New York Times as someone “who has idolized law enforcement since he was young” and went to Kenosha “with at least one mission: to play the role of police officer and medic.” The prosecution noted a number of his lies Wednesday, including false claims to the press about being an EMT. Part of the discomfort as we watched him emote, to say nothing of the suspicion, may be that we’re generally unfamiliar with seeing boys and men exhibit emotion in such a public way. Vulnerability and common conceptions of manhood, especially among conservatives, have not traditionally been bedfellows.





> However, Rittenhouse’s emotion on the stand should be an indictment of his behavior, not an excuse for it. By law, he was too young to have the weapon he used to kill. He told the court that the reason he picked the AR-15-style rifle, as opposed to a handgun, is he thought “it looked cool.”




Offering condolences for burning cars, and there to help people?


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> A little more on the Kenosha killer kid trying to pull a 'Kavanaugh'.   <- _So much alliteration, it's awesome!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Offering condolences for burning cars, and there to help people?



Is taking an AR-15 to a parking lot a customary way of mourning the loss of a car in Wisconsin?


----------



## SuperMatt

Elie Mystal, writing for The Nation, talks about how the Rittenhouse trial lays bare systemic racism.









						White People Explain Racism to Me
					

I’ve lived my whole life as a Black man in America, but every day I have to contend with some white person schooling me on what is and isn’t racist.




					www.thenation.com


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> Elie Mystal, writing for The Nation, talks about how the Rittenhouse trial lays bare systemic racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White People Explain Racism to Me
> 
> 
> I’ve lived my whole life as a Black man in America, but every day I have to contend with some white person schooling me on what is and isn’t racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thenation.com



Meanwhile reddit topics:




This guy's gonna get away without a single charge, it is absolutely obvious by now. We already have bad takeaways from this (see above). This reminds me of a conversation I've had with a colleague of mine. Their kid just started at a prestigious Canadian college and we were chuckling about how much tougher they are on students compared to US. So we have these kids in the USA who never get realistic feedback (unless they parents provide it to them), who develop these enormous fragile egos. Arming them is a great idea.


----------



## Eric

P_X said:


> Meanwhile reddit topics:
> View attachment 9818
> 
> *This guy's gonna get away without a single charge*, it is absolutely obvious by now. We already have bad takeaways from this (see above). This reminds me of a conversation I've had with a colleague of mine. Their kid just started at a prestigious Canadian college and we were chuckling about how much tougher they are on students compared to US. So we have these kids in the USA who never get realistic feedback (unless they parents provide it to them), who develop these enormous fragile egos. Arming them is a great idea.



Sounds like this will be the case. I don't wish harm on anyone generally but this son of a bitch deserves whatever may happen to him on the streets and will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life.


----------



## Joe

Eric said:


> Sounds like this will be the case. I don't wish harm on anyone generally but this son of a bitch deserves whatever may happen to him on the streets and will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life.




He's stupid. He will be in trouble again. And he may not make it the next time.


----------



## Eric

JagRunner said:


> He's stupid. He will be in trouble again. And he may not make it the next time.



That's what I thought about George Zimmerman but nothing has ever happened to that guy, ever since that trial I've basically lost any faith in the system. It seems to favor vigilantism so I figure why should that be frowned upon the other way? The system clearly won't handle it. Where's Charles Bronson when we need him.


----------



## User.45

Eric said:


> Sounds like this will be the case. I don't wish harm on anyone generally but this son of a bitch deserves whatever may happen to him on the streets and will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life.





JagRunner said:


> He's stupid. He will be in trouble again. And he may not make it the next time.



He'll just join a white supremacist group and roll with it. I agree though, I'd be shocked if he didn't get in trouble in the future. I can only hope that time nobody will die...


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> Meanwhile reddit topics:
> View attachment 9818
> 
> This guy's gonna get away without a single charge, it is absolutely obvious by now. We already have bad takeaways from this (see above). This reminds me of a conversation I've had with a colleague of mine. Their kid just started at a prestigious Canadian college and we were chuckling about how much tougher they are on students compared to US. So we have these kids in the USA who never get realistic feedback (unless they parents provide it to them), who develop these enormous fragile egos. Arming them is a great idea.



What I found interesting about the article in “The Nation” is that it was obvious to the author before the trial began that Rittenhouse would not be held responsible. I hope he is wrong, but I fear he is right.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> What I found interesting about the article in “The Nation” is that it was obvious to the author before the trial began that Rittenhouse would not be held responsible. I hope he is wrong, but I fear he is right.



This whole thing is just a cascade where the originating element is cops not being held accountable.


----------



## SuperMatt

In the closing argument, the judge allowed this to be uttered without challenge by the defense:



> We don't play fast and loose with the facts, pretending that Mr. Rosenbaum was citizen A, No. 1 guy. He was a bad man. He was there. He was causing trouble. He was a rioter.



But calling Mr. Rosenbaum a “victim“ would be WAY TOO BIASED.

Yes, the people killed by Rittenhouse were the bad people, not Rittenhouse. Utter nonsense… I get it, the defense has to defend their client, but the judge is full of crap allowing such statements but blocking the use of the word “victim.”


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> This whole thing is just a cascade where the originating element is cops not being held accountable.



Right. Jacob Blake is lucky to be alive, and paralyzed for the rest of his life, and the officer is not being held responsible at all.


----------



## Joe

Eric said:


> That's what I thought about George Zimmerman but nothing has ever happened to that guy, ever since that trial I've basically lost any faith in the system. It seems to favor vigilantism so I figure why should that be frowned upon the other way? The system clearly won't handle it. Where's Charles Bronson when we need him.




Yeah, Zimmerman was stupid. But I think Rittenhouse won't be able to stay away from trouble. He's a stupid kid. He's not bright at all. Zimmerman was already an older adult and slightly more mature than Rittenhouse. Zimmerman also happened before Trump. Things are a lot worse now with the Trump cult out in full force. It won't be the last time we hear about this kid, especially if he aligns himself with the far right crazy idiots. If he were smart he would lay low and just live his life. But he's not smart lol


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> Yes, the people killed by Rittenhouse were the bad people, not Rittenhouse. Utter nonsense… I get it, the defense has to defend their client, but the judge is full of crap allowing such statements but blocking the use of the word “victim.”



Have they killed anyone by age 17? Kyle isn't at a great start for being a good person, especially considering his age.



JagRunner said:


> Yeah, Zimmerman was stupid. But I think Rittenhouse won't be able to stay away from trouble. He's a stupid kid. He's not bright at all. Zimmerman was already an older adult and slightly more mature than Rittenhouse. Zimmerman also happened before Trump. Things are a lot worse now with the Trump cult out in full force. It won't be the last time we hear about this kid, especially if he aligns himself with the far right crazy idiots. If he were smart he would lay low and just live his life. But he's not smart lol



Agree 100%. The other difference is 
In Zimmerman's era there was much harder to make money on this all.
Rittenhouse will be continuously tempted to capitalize on his infamy.


----------



## Eric

P_X said:


> Have they killed anyone by age 17? Kyle isn't at a great start for being a good person, especially considering his age.
> 
> 
> Agree 100%. The other difference is
> In Zimmerman's era there was much harder to make money on this all.
> Rittenhouse will be continuously tempted to capitalize on his infamy.



And Fox News will be front and center to advertise any fundraising campaigns he starts. However, one has to think civil suits could be a problem for him.


----------



## Joe

P_X said:


> Have they killed anyone by age 17? Kyle isn't at a great start for being a good person, especially considering his age.
> 
> 
> Agree 100%. The other difference is
> In Zimmerman's era there was much harder to make money on this all.
> Rittenhouse will be continuously tempted to capitalize on his infamy.




Yup, we're in the age of social media "likes" and fame. He's a stupid kid. He's gonna want to be out there getting that internet clout and fame. The next time he gets into trouble he may be on the other end of that bullet.


----------



## User.45

Eric said:


> And Fox News will be front and center to advertise any fundraising campaigns he starts. However, one has to think civil suits could be a problem for him.



Civil suits will make him even more desperate for money and more craziness.


----------



## GermanSuplex

In the words of George Carlin… “F*** Tucker, Tucker sucks. And F*** Tucker’s friend Kyle.”

He’ll get off, and then the real test of what kind of person Rittenhouse is will be laid out. Everything from where he gives his first interview (probably Hannity), to how he responds to the press and what situations he finds himself in the future. I’m willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes, no matter how much he put himself in the situation.

This case is bigger than him. It’s really just an avatar of white privilege in America. You can bet your ass if he was black, and everything else was equal, Fox would be singing a different song. The judge would have allowed any and every bit of evidence. Etc, etc.

And why are the defense allowed to shit on the people he killed, but the prosecutors forbidden to bring up very releveant details?


----------



## Joe

GermanSuplex said:


> In the words of George Carlin… “F*** Tucker, Tucker sucks. And F*** Tucker’s friend Kyle.”
> 
> He’ll get off, and then the real test of what kind of person Rittenhouse is will be laid out. Everything from where he gives his first interview (probably Hannity), to how he responds to the press and what situations he finds himself in the future. I’m willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes, no matter how much he put himself in the situation.
> 
> This case is bigger than him. It’s really just an avatar of white privilege in America. You can bet your ass if he was black, and everything else was equal, Fox would be singing a different song. The judge would have allowed any and every bit of evidence. Etc, etc.
> 
> And why are the defense allowed to shit on the people he killed, but the prosecutors forbidden to bring up very releveant details?




When I see how bad shit is in 2021 I can’t even imagine how it was decades ago.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1460412610998718468/


----------



## JayMysteri0

Might as well get our  laughs in now

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1460586448130699268/


----------



## Eric

White privilege at its finest.


I’m white and I say so logic from
      BlackPeopleTwitter


----------



## Roller

This gives me pause about the judge. One would have expected him to have more carefully planned his jury instructions in advance.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1460347802500964359/


----------



## ronntaylor

Roller said:


> This gives me pause about the judge. One would have expected him to have more carefully planned his jury instructions in advance.



Biased and incompetent. He should just give li'l Kyle a cookie and tell him to go home and don't be bad.


----------



## JayMysteri0

I can easily imagine that if the jury came back in one or two days & just read "guilty" across the board for all charges, I could see this judge sending them back to deliberate.  Claiming they clearly didn't understand something like his instructions, or what charges he wanted, or straight up they didn't get it right.


----------



## User.45

Roller said:


> This gives me *pause* about the judge. One would have expected him to have more carefully planned his jury instructions in advance.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1460347802500964359/



See what you did there, LOL. This trial has been a shit show on so many levels. Sadly, all of this is a mockery of the US legal system. And then you look at the stats screaming disparities louder than anything and we all get upset, but nothing of substance happens. Disappointing.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Where are the people who shit on Joe Biden - who on his worst day is infinitely more mentally capable than orange fatzo  - at with their critique of this judge? Half of him seems out of it, and the other half seems like a defense lawyer for the kid.


----------



## GermanSuplex

JayMysteri0 said:


> I can easily imagine that if the jury came back in one or two days & just read "guilty" across the board for all charges, I could see this judge sending them back to deliberate.  Claiming they clearly didn't understand something like his instructions, or what charges he wanted, or straight up they didn't get it right.




If that happens, I can see the right wing lunatics staging their own protests, protests that would probably be ten times as violent as the BLM protests (which were actually more peaceful than those in the civil rights movement). Of course Fox News and the lunatic right would probably co-sign all of it.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Seriously.  

If there is anything I've come to learn over the past year, is that you always know who the privileged assholes are, because in the effort to try to badly play the victim, they always need to appropriate from groups they ordinarily with no shame shit on.


----------



## JayMysteri0

...And unsurprisingly

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461022534300745729/

In other words, cameras are now bad, and the judge can't take the criticisms.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461024357438963718/

Perhaps the judge should think long & hard about limiting his talking.

Bad Asian jokes anyone?  Now "optics" are bad?


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> ...And unsurprisingly
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461022534300745729/
> 
> In other words, cameras are now bad, and the judge can't take the criticisms.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461024357438963718/
> 
> Perhaps the judge should think long & hard about limiting his talking.
> 
> Bad Asian jokes anyone?  Now "optics" are bad?



Maybe having somebody’s racist, senile uncle as a judge in a high-profile case was a bad idea?

Wisconsin’s justice system has problems that go far beyond the police department. And this case has laid them bare. No wonder Judge Broody regrets allowing cameras to capture the way he works.


----------



## SuperMatt

From The NY Times “live blog” coverage:



> Rittenhouse’s lawyers had previously asked the judge to dismiss the case and not allow a retrial because prosecutors had commented on their client’s silence after the shootings in front of the jury. But now they are asking for a mistrial “without prejudice” — meaning that prosecutors could refile charges — *arguing that they did not have access to a high-quality video *that most fully captures the first of the three shootings.



Did the defense not have access to it? Or did they not know how to zoom in on their iPad? Zooming with an iPad seemed to confuse all of them, especially the judge, as if it were witchcraft or something.


----------



## MEJHarrison

SuperMatt said:


> From The NY Times “live blog” coverage:
> 
> 
> Did the defense not have access to it?




It sounds like an was an iOS -> Android issue.  They couldn't AirDrop the file, so they texted it.  That compressed the original.  Thus one side has higher quality video than the other.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Matt Gaetz praises Kyle Rittenhouse for "helping the country," offers him a congressional internship
					

“We may reach out to him and see if he’d be interested in helping the country in additional ways," Gaetz said




					www.salon.com
				




Because of course.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Well, this is interesting...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461389837286653961/

Which has led to this...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461388305409495048/

Which has the right wing press frothing, and declaring that the kid is the most put upon victim in America.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461407881463582727/

Thing to bear in mind...  The judge is doing this based on an allegation, as it's still under investigation.

This trial never fails to surprise.

Nor does the judge who despite protests, seems to really love being the spotlight of the trial.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Well, this is interesting...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461389837286653961/
> 
> Which has led to this...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461388305409495048/
> 
> Which has the right wing press frothing, and declaring that the kid is the most put upon victim in America.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461407881463582727/
> 
> Thing to bear in mind...  The judge is doing this based on an allegation, as it's still under investigation.
> 
> This trial never fails to surprise.
> 
> Nor does the judge who despite protests, seems to really love being the spotlight of the trial.



If a Fox “journalist” did the same thing, would the police have reacted the same way? Would the judge have reacted the same way?

I guess we’ll never know. 

If the jury returns a guilty verdict, I bet this judge will show us all the reason why he’s been sitting on a couple motions from the defense for a mistrial...


----------



## Yoused

Matt Gaetz wants Kyle for a catam– congressional aide









						Matt Gaetz said his office is open to hiring Kyle Rittenhouse as a congressional intern if he's 'interested in helping the country in additional ways'
					

A 12-member jury is deliberating whether Rittenhouse is guilty of five felony charges including first-degree homicide.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## GermanSuplex

Hmm, another one of those coincidences. Even after all the crap this judge got for his bias,  he then said a black bailiff drawing a black juror’s name in a previous case had “bad optics”… so then if Rittenhouse drew any white people’s names, is that bad optics? Then he muses over banning the media. SURPRISE! MSNBC is banned.

The judge is about one step away from saying the n-word in court, and even that wouldn’t sway the right that he was biased.

This judge is past his “use by” date.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

The NRA gave us Kyle Rittenhouse
					

Both the Rittenhouse and McMichael-Bryan killings are the result of decades of NRA propaganda




					www.salon.com


----------



## Yoused

Meanwhile, the NRA has other problems









						Ransomware gang says it hacked the National Rifle Association
					

Russia-linked cybercriminals claim to have published files belonging to the gun-rights group on the dark web.




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Thomas Veil

Yoused said:


> Matt Gaetz wants Kyle for a catam– congressional aide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Gaetz said his office is open to hiring Kyle Rittenhouse as a congressional intern if he's 'interested in helping the country in additional ways'
> 
> 
> A 12-member jury is deliberating whether Rittenhouse is guilty of five felony charges including first-degree homicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com



Crooks of a feather, apparently.

That's a great picture of Gaetz, BTW. Really lets his personality (asshole) shine through.


----------



## JayMysteri0

What should be to no one's surprise, when it comes to rumors & the group claiming to belong to the party of responsibility, and always worried the media is lying to someone...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461455193044922371/



> Photo of bricks was taken at a construction site in Dallas, Texas, in 2020, the AP and Lead Stories report
> 
> A group of images showing piles of bricks is being falsely attributed to Kenosha, Wisconsin, where Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial for killing two men and wounding a third during protests in the summer of 2020, Newsweek reports. One of the photos “has been circulating online since last year, and shows bricks near a construction site at 1700 Ashland St. in Dallas. The bricks can be found in an image from Google Maps as early as February 2020,” The AP says. Photos of bricks have been falsely attributed to cities experiencing or anticipating mass protests since 2020, fact checkers report.




via Twitter



> What you need to know
> - The Kenosha County Sheriff's office confirmed to Newsweek that they have not found any credible threats related to "piles of bricks" in the area
> 
> - The Kenosha Police Department have said they are aware of "numerous attempts" of people spreading "disinformation" on social media
> 
> - Similar false claims were made during the height of the summer 2020 protests sparked by the death of George Floyd, Newsweek and The AP report




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461431981443588101/

FFS


----------



## Thomas Veil

Really? The brick thing? Again? 

*Sigh.* I guess it’s better than waking up to some _new_ bullshit.


----------



## Pumbaa

Ignoring the lies: If placement of bricks can be “suspicious”, intent obviously matters. Surely that must be the case for guns as well…


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Yoused

theSeb said:


> "We have met the enemy and he is us"



_ Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. … There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us._
— Walt Kelly, 1953​


----------



## Renzatic

The verdict's been read. Not guilty on all counts. He walks.


----------



## Roller

Not surprised. I'm sure he'll have a bright future in the Republican party, or maybe the Proud Boys or their ilk. He'll also serve as a role model to others who want to do the same at protests.


----------



## SuperMatt

I predict he will kill again.


----------



## Alli

This sets a horrible precedent moving forward. You don’t even have to prove your life was in danger, just say you felt threatened. Licensed to kill.


----------



## Eric

If one wants, they can arm themselves, hunt him down and then shoot if he resists. Precedent has been set.

Additionally, anyone who riots against this has my full support. The system is not going to change itself, the people need to stand up.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461763423906140162/

When the judge in your case is chummy, you know the deal.

When you need the whole country to plea for your case & it's barely heard until the last hours, you know the deal.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461768051334991877/


----------



## SuperMatt

Alli said:


> This sets a horrible precedent moving forward. You don’t even have to prove your life was in danger, just say you felt threatened. Licensed to kill.



Take this verdict to its logical conclusion. A small group of heavily armed people confronts a large group of peaceful protesters. One person in the crowd throws a water bottle. The group of armed people feels threatened and kills hundreds in the peaceful crowd. None of them go to jail for the killings.

Coming soon to your city.


----------



## rdrr

SuperMatt said:


> Take this verdict to its logical conclusion. A small group of heavily armed people confronts a large group of peaceful protesters. One person in the crowd throws a water bottle. The group of armed people feel threatened and kills hundreds in the peaceful crowd. None of them go to jail for the killings.
> 
> Coming soon to your city.




And here is a great question for our R friends.  Now how are you to determine if the shooter is really committing a crime or just shooting up the Libs?


----------



## GermanSuplex

Alli said:


> This sets a horrible precedent moving forward. You don’t even have to prove your life was in danger, just say you felt threatened. Licensed to kill.




Just make sure you're white, and make sure that you engage in something revolving around race. Had he brought his gun to a conservative rally and shot and killed two MAGA-hat wearing rednecks, I'm not so sure the right would feel the same way. In fact, the story probably wouldn't make news and he'd just be arrested, tried and convicted. But because he was a white kid open carrying during unrest from the Jacob Blake shootings, and the people he killed were BLM sympathizers... well, its ok.

I'd feel much more better about his self-defense arguments if he faced stiff consequences for arming himself and parading around with a rifle. I guarantee if 17 year old black teens started wandering the streets with AR-15s, the right would NOT be as pro-gun and pro-self defense as they are now.

The verdict is not surprising, and to be clear, I do not place any blame on the jury. These decisions usually aren't easy. But the case was stacked in Rittenhouse's defense from the beginning, with the cult of Trump backing him as if he's actually a hero (he's not; if he was a hero his "victims" would have had black eyes and not much else). Then there's the judge, who did all but scream to the jury "We're on this kid's side, please acquit".

People would feel a lot different about Rittenhouse if he had blasted away their son, daughter or loved one.


----------



## GermanSuplex

SuperMatt said:


> Take this verdict to its logical conclusion. A small group of heavily armed people confronts a large group of peaceful protesters. One person in the crowd throws a water bottle. The group of armed people feels threatened and kills hundreds in the peaceful crowd. None of them go to jail for the killings.
> 
> Coming soon to your city.




This is what I fear. The law and these socially/politically/racially charged cases that end up with the perp getting off free and clear seems like it would make it very easy to put yourself in a circumstance to kill people. I guarantee we are going to see copycat killers seeking the notoriety and "thrill" of taking a life.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

So are Republicans going to thank or blame Biden for this?


----------



## rdrr

I think the judge deserves a call or two.   Won't paste the actual phone numbers, but it can be found on this public website, https://www.kenoshacounty.org/122/Judges-and-Commissioners


----------



## SuperMatt

rdrr said:


> I think the judge deserves a call or two.   Won't paste the actual phone numbers, but it can be found on this public website, https://www.kenoshacounty.org/122/Judges-and-Commissioners



Each time you call him he gets to listen to Lee Greenwood’s "God Bless the USA"


----------



## Thomas Veil

For me the worst part is that he went there ostensibly to “protect”…well, something.

He _went out of his way_ to put himself in that situation—which makes him nothing more than a vigilante.

So yeah, this sends the message: roam the country freely looking for trouble. If you want to kill protesters, place yourself in a plausible “threatened” situation.


----------



## Huntn

Rittenhouse innocent. Here is the applied legal gun philosophical framework:

White: 50% innocent
Bought a Gun to a protest: 50+40= 90% innocent.
Shoots and murder unarmed protestors who feel threatened by a gun pointed at them: 100% INNOCENT FOR THE WIN!!  Not even manslaughter. As a bonus, welcome to your civil lawsuit.
*Lesson learned*: Be white and be sure to bring your own gun. The armed citizen get extra stars when it comes to shooting unarmed citizens under the eyes of gun owning jurors. Surely there was a good reason the white gun wielder used his gun.


----------



## Eric

Huntn said:


> Rittenhouse innocent. Here is the applied legal gun philosophical framework:
> 
> *White: 50% innocent*



Out of the gate his biggest advantage. No way in hell a black man under these exact same circumstances would have ever survived this judge, jury or trial.


----------



## Huntn

Eric said:


> Out of the gate his biggest advantage. No way in hell a black man under these exact same circumstances would have ever survived this judge, jury or trial.



Hell, the police would have shot him if he was brown or black, no worries about a trial…


----------



## Eric

Eric said:


> If one wants, they can arm themselves, hunt him down and then shoot if he resists. Precedent has been set.



Posted this on Reddit in r/news and got banned from the sub as a result, if you don't have anything nice to say about Rittenhouse or that trial they're throwing the hammer at you. Tons of dissent towards the prosecution, some deserved but this kid has a lot of supporters.

Really would like to see how the proud boys respond if BLM shows up with AR 15s, sounds like they'll welcome it based on their reaction here.


----------



## Joe

Start arming yourself if you aren’t already. Train and learn how to use a weapon. These crazy right wingers are only gonna get crazier.  When shit hits the fan with these crazy fucks getting into office you don’t wanna be defenseless.


----------



## rdrr

JagRunner said:


> Start arming yourself if you aren’t already. Train and learn how to use a weapon. These crazy right wingers are only gonna get crazier.  When shit hits the fan with these crazy fucks getting into office you don’t wanna be defenseless.



I'd like to think we aren't that far down the road.  Maybe I am being a polly-anna, but that is too grim of a thought.


----------



## JayMysteri0

This was NEVER truly about the kid.

The judge laid that out early, it was about sending a message.  It was about what is the order of things.  From those being shot can't be labelled victims, but those on the streets can be 'rioters'.  The judges reactions solely to the prosecutors.  The judge deciding on what charges can be applied,  especially the dropped weapon charge.  His behavior with his phone, that you know he would have railed on the prosecutors doing the same thing.  Asian food.  Having the court applaud a witness on Veteran's day for the defense, that was established earlier in the trial as a veteran.  The judge's railing on the use of camera's in court, solely because his behavior became a focal point earning criticism Acting on the allegations of what MSNBC supposedly did, but he admittedly didn't know for sure & the police hadn't concluded yet.  Watching the groups that championed & embraced the kid for actions they'd want any other kid shot on sight.

The kid became a side thought at one point & was nothing more than the title of a show to remind us how things work.  There is an order to things, and the law ( in this judge's case ) would like to remind you how things REALLY work.



That was some literal 'thumb on scale' behavior on display, but a helpful reminder of how justice & the courts work for SOME.


----------



## Renzatic

I'm not quite ready to start a screaming fit just yet. Yeah, the thumb was on the scales of justice for Rittenhouse, but the evidence presented against him was fairly weak, not showing any moment that could be pointed out as provocation on Rittenhouse's part, and the prosecution was inept at best.

It was a complete and total clusterfuck to close out a complete and total clusterfuck.

Now if the same thing happens with the McMichael's case, THEN we can say that the shit is truly hitting the fan, and justice has become a fiction in these United States.


----------



## Eric

Gonna throw in one of my own here. Hypocritical Republicans are suddenly "concerned".

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1461789844821135370/


----------



## rdrr

Renzatic said:


> I'm not quite ready to start a screaming fit just yet. Yeah, the thumb was on the scales of justice for Rittenhouse, but the evidence presented against him was fairly weak, not showing any moment that could be pointed out as provocation on Rittenhouse's part, and the prosecution was inept at best.
> 
> It was a complete and total clusterfuck to close out a complete and total clusterfuck.
> 
> Now if the same thing happens with the McMichael's case, THEN we can say that the shit is truly hitting the fan, and justice has become a fiction in these United States.



Already is fiction.   Black Florida woman in 2012, stands ground and shots abusive husband...  Sentenced to 20 years, serves 6 years.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Renzatic said:


> I'm not quite ready to start a screaming fit just yet. Yeah, the thumb was on the scales of justice for Rittenhouse, but the evidence presented against him was fairly weak, not showing any moment that could be pointed out as provocation on Rittenhouse's part, and the prosecution was inept at best.
> 
> It was a complete and total clusterfuck to close out a complete and total clusterfuck.
> 
> Now if the same thing happens with the McMichael's case, THEN we can say that the shit is truly hitting the fan, and justice has become a fiction in these United States.




Basically my thoughts. The prosecution failed to prove that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, the only situation in which he could've been found guilty.

Could he have been guilty on some of the non-homicide charges? Perhaps. But everything I've seen about this case indicates to me that it was self-defense. That does not mean he should've been there.

The problem is this case is more about what "side" you're on than it is about the facts. Anyone saying he's a hero or pure evil is not really worth listening to.


----------



## Renzatic

rdrr said:


> Already is fiction.   Black Florida woman in 2012, stands ground and shots abusive husband...  Sentenced to 20 years, serves 6 years.




I wouldn't say that. Not yet. But it's hard to deny it can be arbitrary at times, and unevenly applied.

In the end, we're all at the mercy of the selected jury, and the quality of our representation.


----------



## Eric

TBL said:


> Basically my thoughts. The prosecution failed to prove that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, the only situation in which he could've been found guilty.
> 
> Could he have been guilty on some of the non-homicide charges? Perhaps. But everything I've seen about this case indicates to me that it was self-defense. That does not mean he should've been there.
> 
> The problem is this case is more about what "side" you're on than it is about the facts. Anyone saying he's a hero or pure evil is not really worth listening to.



I don't know, looking at that video it showed that he was the aggressor IMO, looking for the fight by jumping into the middle of it. Very much the same way Zimmerman was looking for it with Trayvon Martin. These guys all think they're tough shit until they start getting their asses kicked, then fire their weapons and claim self defense. 

Going just by the videos, it shows guilt, adding in all the legalize around self defense made them question all of it. I maintain that if this were a black person there's no way it would've ended this way.


----------



## Herdfan

Renzatic said:


> I'm not quite ready to start a screaming fit just yet. Yeah, the thumb was on the scales of justice for Rittenhouse, but the evidence presented against him was fairly weak, not showing any moment that could be pointed out as provocation on Rittenhouse's part, and the prosecution was inept at best.
> 
> It was a complete and total clusterfuck to close out a complete and total clusterfuck.
> 
> Now if the same thing happens with the McMichael's case, THEN we can say that the shit is truly hitting the fan, and justice has become a fiction in these United States.




Only a couple of points.

1) If you were surprised at the Rittenhouse verdict, you might want to find a new news source.  Much of the reporting was flat out incorrect.  

2) The McMichael's should be found guilty and executed out in front of the courthouse 15 minutes after the verdict is read.


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> I wouldn't say that. Not yet. But it's hard to deny it can be arbitrary at times, and unevenly applied.
> 
> In the end, we're all at the mercy of the selected jury, and the quality of our representation.



The state prosecutes. The state provides the judge. Both of these state-provided entities made sure Rittenhouse would walk. The judge was obviously biased towards the defense in words and actions. The prosecution was incompetent to a level where it seemed like their intent was to lose.

Both judge and prosecution are VERY capable of convicting criminals… when they want to.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Eric said:


> Out of the gate his biggest advantage. No way in hell a black man under these exact same circumstances would have ever survived this judge, jury or trial.




White = FInd a loophole to acquit.
Black = Find a loophole to convict.

Not even a charge for walking around armed at 17. I guess _technically_ he was hunting, so maybe it wasn't off the mark.

Not being convicted of intentional homicide is one thing, but to face no consequences at all? How many people have been locked up for decades for less egregious acts? Or no act at all?


----------



## Renzatic

Eric said:


> I don't know, looking at that video it showed that he was the aggressor IMO, looking for the fight by jumping into the middle of it. Very much the same way Zimmerman was looking for it with Trayvon Martin. These guys all think they're tough shit until they start getting their asses kicked, then fire their weapons and claim self defense.




It does seem like the country's slowly becoming a field day for every microdicked fuckwit with more guns than brains.

Zimmerman's case fell through because the prosecution wanted to push for Murder Two, which was nearly impossible given the evidence on hand. They couldn't prove that he fully intended to murder Martin the moment he saw him that night. There were no living witnesses to the crime beyond Zimmerman himself, no evidence of outright murderous intent, thus no real case for the prosecution to push a murder charge with.

If he were charged with Voluntary Manslaughter, he'd still be jail today. That's easy to prove. He likely didn't intend to kill Martin, but he had no reason to stop him on the street, and his aggressive attitude and general recklessness is what lead to the shooting.

For Rittenhouse, yeah, he went out looking for trouble, and it ended up finding him. Though armed, he wasn't outright antagonizing anyone, and he ended up being jumped first, giving the little asshole every right to defend himself. Everything that happened thereafter was one long cascade of bad decisions that happened to play out in his favor.


----------



## rdrr

Herdfan said:


> Only a couple of points.
> 
> 1) If you were surprised at the Rittenhouse verdict, you might want to find a new news source.  Much of the reporting was flat out incorrect.
> 
> 2) The McMichael's should be found guilty and executed out in front of the courthouse 15 minutes after the verdict is read.



#2 disagree...  They need to be chased down until exhausted and then executed.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> 1) If you were surprised at the Rittenhouse verdict, you might want to find a new news source. Much of the reporting was flat out incorrect.



I’m not surprised. But what are these many incorrect reports of which you speak?


----------



## Renzatic

SuperMatt said:


> The state prosecutes. The state provides the judge. Both of these state-provided entities made sure Rittenhouse would walk. The judge was obviously biased towards the defense in words and actions. The prosecution was incompetent to a level where it seemed like their intent was to lose.
> 
> Both judge and prosecution are VERY capable of convicting criminals… when they want to.




I won't deny this, because it did seem the state was out to purposefully sabotage its own case at times.

The fact is, though, Rittenhouse is free. He's protected by double jeopardy. If it is found out the state did game the system for his benefit, it won't be him that goes to jail.


----------



## Herdfan

TBL said:


> Basically my thoughts. The prosecution failed to prove that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, the only situation in which he could've been found guilty.
> 
> Could he have been guilty on some of the non-homicide charges? Perhaps. But everything I've seen about this case indicates to me that it was self-defense. *That does not mean he should've been there.*
> 
> The problem is this case is more about what "side" you're on than it is about the facts. Anyone saying he's a hero or pure evil is not really worth listening to.




Not picking on you here for sure, but when an illegal commits a crime and the right says "well if he wasn't here........" we get trashed.

But I do agree, he should not have been there.  Of he really was there to protect the car dealership, then stay AT the car dealership.


----------



## Renzatic

Herdfan said:


> Not picking on you here for sure, but when an illegal commits a crime and the right says "well if he wasn't here........" we get trashed.




Probably because that statement indirectly pushes the blame on an entire group of people, while Kyle Rittenhouse is just one person.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Not picking on you here for sure, but when an illegal commits a crime and the right says "well if he wasn't here........" we get trashed.
> 
> But I do agree, he should not have been there.  Of he really was there to protect the car dealership, then stay AT the car dealership.



A terrible analogy accompanied by a dehumanizing referral to a human being. Referring to a person as “an illegal” is disgusting. Even the dictionary points out that such usage of the term is offensive.









						Definition of ILLEGAL
					

not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> I’m not surprised. But what are these many incorrect reports of which you speak?




One for example is why he was in Kenosha.

Most of the news media wanted you to think this 17-year old just decided on his own to go to Kenosha to cause trouble.  They completely ignored the fact that his father lived there and that he worked for the county as a lifeguard.


----------



## Herdfan

Renzatic said:


> I won't deny this, because it did seem the state was out to purposefully sabotage its own case at times.




Well, when you rush the charges and end up overcharging someone, what else can you do?


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Roller said:


> Not surprised. I'm sure he'll have a bright future in the Republican party, or maybe the Proud Boys or their ilk. He'll also serve as a role model to others who want to do the same at protests.



or he will become the next George  Zimmerman because he is not exactly stable material. sad even the laws he absolutely broke he got away with good job judge.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> A terrible analogy accompanied by a dehumanizing referral to a human being. Referring to a person as “an illegal” is disgusting. Even the dictionary points out that such usage of the term is offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of ILLEGAL
> 
> 
> not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)… See the full definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com



"Sometimes" offensive.  

It may be offensive to you and that's fine, but it is still accurate.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> "Sometimes" offensive.
> 
> It may be offensive to you and that's fine, but it is still accurate.



Calling a human being “an illegal” is not offensive if you are a bigot. To everybody else, it’s offensive. Meanwhile, your language which is offensive to all except the bigots among us is derailing the thread.


----------



## rdrr

Herdfan said:


> "Sometimes" offensive.
> 
> It may be offensive to you and that's fine, but it is still accurate.



Not bashing you for using the term.  I think people are too quick to get on their soapboxes.   However to educate, yes someone can be illegally here, or have performed an illegal act to get into this country. What they are trying to express, is labeling a person "illegal" is distasteful because you are stating that they shouldn't exist.  Use it to describe an act, do not use it to classify a person.


----------



## Thomas Veil

Rittenhouse, after the verdict was read:


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> One for example is why he was in Kenosha.
> 
> Most of the news media wanted you to think this 17-year old just decided on his own to go to Kenosha to cause trouble.  They completely ignored the fact that his father lived there and that he worked for the county as a lifeguard.



Provide sources, and I do mean multiple, since you said ”much” of the reporting was incorrect.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Herdfan said:


> One for example is why he was in Kenosha.
> 
> Most of the news media wanted you to think this 17-year old just decided on his own to go to Kenosha to cause trouble.  They completely ignored the fact that his father lived there and that he worked for the county as a lifeguard.




He didn't go to Kenosha to visit his father. I have family out of town. If a riot happens there and I go wandering the streets with a rifle, its not because I'm visiting family. Republicans are supposed to be the "call it like it is" party, but if that was the case, we all would admit why he went to Kenosha. Let's be real here.


----------



## Joe

He’ll be in trouble again. He’s a stupid kid. Next time he may not be so lucky.


----------



## Yoused

Renzatic said:


> the prosecution was inept at best



I believe it is pretty well established that in every jurisdiction, the DA and the Chief of Police [redacted] each other. In this case, the police in general wanted Zimmerhouse to walk, so they leaned heavily on the prosecutor to screw this up. I cannot offer any evidence that this is the case, other than the long history of [redacted] between those two groups.


----------



## Deleted member 215

theSeb said:


> I am not sure what world you live in where somebody walking into the middle of a riot with an AR-15 is not immediately an aggressor. Oh wait, it’s the USA. I realise that things are changing quickly in the US and the new normal is absurd to me, but that is not normal behaviour in most third world shitholes, never mind in civilised nations. Instead of oohing and aaahing over the intricacies and technicalities of this case, some of you need to take a good and fucking long deep look into yourselves and into your country. Is this really the world you want to live in? It‘s barely recognisable from anarchy.




A riot/protest of this nature is inherently volatile. I'm sure there were people at that protest who were looking for a fight and an excuse to smash and burn things. Likewise, Kyle may have been looking for an excuse to fire his weapon. It doesn't mean that anyone who went there loses their right to self-defense, so yes, the particulars do matter.


----------



## JayMysteri0

TBL said:


> A riot/protest of this nature is inherently volatile. I'm sure there were people at that protest who were looking for a fight and an excuse to smash and burn things. Likewise, Kyle may have been looking for an excuse to fire his weapon. It doesn't mean that anyone who went there loses their right to self-defense, so yes, the particulars do matter.



True.

What is the issue the prosecutor was supposed to make, is how "self defense" is used.

The comparisons with Zimmerman are because in both situations the subjects went into a situation ( Zimmerman's case was more blatant since he continued to pursue after being told to leave it to the police ), it turned out real life is much different than movies & videogames, and suddenly the situations they intentionally entered required "self defense".

"Self defense" in each situation is the citizen / non professional version of "I was afraid for my life" that has become the universal "get out of jail free" card for police.  The problem of course is that "self defense" tends to work selectively dependent on the person claiming it, as it's been noted with Marissa Alexander.  In each case the courts' seem to have different levels of vigor in pursuing a guilty plea.


----------



## MEJHarrison

Herdfan said:


> Not picking on you here for sure, but when an illegal commits a crime and the right says "well if he wasn't here........" we get trashed.




One side seems to be saying "a minor shouldn't have entered dangerous situation armed with a weapon he wasn't old enough to own".

The other side seems to be saying "none of these people should be in this country because a few of them cause problems".

I'm not sure I'm seeing the same connection you are between those two things.


----------



## ouimetnick

I haven’t read the entire thread, but here are my thoughts.

What kind of parent brings their child to a violent area so their child can “protect” and offer “medical aid”? Would any of you take the risk of placing your own child in harm’s way and bring them to a protest knowing full well the past few days were violent? Would any of you allow your minor child to own a gun? Also, if he was there for medical aid, why did he need a weapon? Do firefighters and other EMT carry AR-15 and other weapons…?

It’s like me bringing my child (if I had one) across state lines to New Hampshire to “protect” a car dealership and offer “medical aid” what a dumbass I would be. Why wasn’t reckless endangerment charges brought against the mother?

I believe he was looking for an excuse to use his gun and he got his wish. Sure it WAS self defense, but if he did what most teenagers do and played video games, smoked pot, went on a hike or hung out with his girlfriend, he wouldn’t be looking for trouble.

Also, can someone help me here.. why are we defending car dealerships or anything that isn’t ours? If there was a riot or protest near my work place or my old hardware store I worked at, I’m getting the heck out. Why would I put my life on the line over silly cars or merchandise? They have insurance policies for a reason, it even covers lost wages.

I’d go as far to say that if there was a protest near my house that I felt could turn violent, I’m grabbing my dog, and all important sentimental non replaceable items and getting out. I have home owner’s insurance that covers my home and will pay for a hotel while the house is being rebuilt. Why would I put myself anywhere near danger if I don’t have to do so? Not worth my life protecting replaceable objects.


----------



## ouimetnick

MEJHarrison said:


> One side seems to be saying "a minor shouldn't have entered dangerous situation armed with a weapon he wasn't old enough to own".
> 
> The other side seems to be saying "none of these people should be in this country because a few of them cause problems".
> 
> I'm not sure I'm seeing the same connection you are between those two things.



A minor shouldn’t have been driven to a dangerous situation PERIOD! Armed or unarmed is asking for trouble. What a stupid excuse of a mother.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

ouimetnick said:


> A minor shouldn’t have been driven to a dangerous situation PERIOD! Armed or unarmed is asking for trouble. What a stupid excuse of a mother.






SuperMatt said:


> Provide sources, and I do mean multiple, since you said ”much” of the reporting was incorrect.




Well here is a perfect example.

Kyle's mother DID NOT DRIVE HIM TO KENOSHA.  He went the day before and stayed the night with a friend.









						Post falsely claims that Kyle Rittenhouse’s mom drove him to Kenosha
					

CLAIM: Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, drove him across state lines and dropped him off at the protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with a rifle on the night he shot three people in August 2020.




					apnews.com


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Well here is a perfect example.
> 
> Kyle's mother DID NOT DRIVE HIM TO KENOSHA.  He went the day before and stayed the night with a friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post falsely claims that Kyle Rittenhouse’s mom drove him to Kenosha
> 
> 
> CLAIM: Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, drove him across state lines and dropped him off at the protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with a rifle on the night he shot three people in August 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com



That was a Facebook post, not a news article. I don’t think most people associate “reporting” with a Facebook meme. The “MSM” actually reported the story correctly. Here’s a pic of the “reporting” you’re talking about...





Yeah, that’s not “reporting” no matter how you slice it. Facebook is infamous for misinformation… this is yet another example.









						Kyle Rittenhouse's mother did not drive him to Kenosha shootings
					

Social media posts circulating during the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse claim his mother drove him to the town in the US state of Wisconsin where he shot three people. But the prosecutor trying the case says there is no evidence to support the claim, Rittenhouse and a friend testified about...




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## Huntn

JayMysteri0 said:


> This was NEVER truly about the kid.
> 
> The judge laid that out early, it was about sending a message.  It was about what is the order of things.  From those being shot can't be labelled victims, but those on the streets can be 'rioters'.  The judges reactions solely to the prosecutors.  The judge deciding on what charges can be applied,  especially the dropped weapon charge.  His behavior with his phone, that you know he would have railed on the prosecutors doing the same thing.  Asian food.  Having the court applaud a witness on Veteran's day for the defense, that was established earlier in the trial as a veteran.  The judge's railing on the use of camera's in court, solely because his behavior became a focal point earning criticism Acting on the allegations of what MSNBC supposedly did, but he admittedly didn't know for sure & the police hadn't concluded yet.  Watching the groups that championed & embraced the kid for actions they'd want any other kid shot on sight.
> 
> The kid became a side thought at one point & was nothing more than the title of a show to remind us how things work.  There is an order to things, and the law ( in this judge's case ) would like to remind you how things REALLY work.
> 
> 
> 
> That was some literal 'thumb on scale' behavior on display, but a helpful reminder of how justice & the courts work for SOME.



That was a mistrial if ever I saw one. It was reported that a mistrial was called for twice and no intervention.  That's kind of astounding. This  verdict was not only a vindication of white supremacy, but of extreme vigilantism.

Now you might think next time, I'll just bring my gun too as it seems like the guy with the gun can scream self defense and get a pass, except you have to consider the judge and  jury. If both guys have guns then it gets complicated, yet if you had this judge and were there supporting BLM during a protest, you'd be the one he'd be hammering on. So much for neutrality before the law. I even think that in the case of 12 guns, once this jury figured out who was supporting Black Live Matters vs Blue Live Matters, Black would taken the hit as usual.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> That was a Facebook post, not a news article. I don’t think most people associate “reporting” with a Facebook meme. The “MSM” actually reported the story correctly. Here’s a pic of the “reporting” you’re talking about...
> 
> View attachment 9899
> 
> Yeah, that’s not “reporting” no matter how you slice it. Facebook is infamous for misinformation… this is yet another example.




I agree.  But yet here it is being presented as fact by @ouimetnick.  Not blaming them as this has been circulating for quite some time.  But where did it originate?  Was it part of a news story that was then "corrected" on the back page after headlining above the fold?  I honestly don't know.

Here is an article on it being shared over 17,000 times on Twitter.









						FACT CHECK: Did Kyle Rittenhouse’s Mother Drive Him To The Kenosha Protest While He Was Armed With A Rifle?
					

'Purchased, stored and used in Wisconsin'




					checkyourfact.com
				




So even though it may not have been the "news" media, it was media and ended up being part of the narrative, which was my point.  Much of what was circulating was misinformation, so if that is all you read, then yes you were probably surprised by the verdict.


----------



## Herdfan

Is there any evidence that the 3 guys who were shot were there to support BLM or simply there as an excuse to cause trouble?


----------



## ouimetnick

Well, I stand corrected, guess that's why it was "glossed over" (because it never happened).. Thanks @Herdfan for the correction.
Why did Kyle drive when he didn't have a driver's license?

“So even though you didn’t have a driver’s license, you drove from your home in Antioch to the RecPlex to work that day?” Binger asked.

“Yes, to be able to get to work,” he replied.

So as long as it's work related, I can break laws??? Still doesn't excuse why he and his buddy felt entitled to defend some car dealership they didn't own or work for. Was his ego that large, or was he looking for trouble. Looking for trouble isn't a crime in of itself, but he definitely had bad intentions. Do paramedics and firefighters carry AR-15s for "medical" reasons? I'm not sure what kind of relationship he had with his parents, but my folks would have drove and taken me home or called the police if they knew what I was up to with my friend..


----------



## ouimetnick

Herdfan said:


> Is there any evidence that the 3 guys who were shot were there to support BLM or simply there as an excuse to cause trouble?



But does that really matter? Is there evidence that Kyle was there to provide medical assistance and protect property he had no affiliation with or simply there as an excuse to cause trouble?


----------



## Eric

Nailed it...


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/qxniwu


----------



## fooferdoggie

JagRunner said:


> He’ll be in trouble again. He’s a stupid kid. Next time he may not be so lucky.



more like someone else wont be so lucky,


----------



## Joe

fooferdoggie said:


> more like someone else wont be so lucky,




Not if you carry too


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I agree.  But yet here it is being presented as fact by @ouimetnick.  Not blaming them as this has been circulating for quite some time.  But where did it originate?  Was it part of a news story that was then "corrected" on the back page after headlining above the fold?  I honestly don't know.
> 
> Here is an article on it being shared over 17,000 times on Twitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FACT CHECK: Did Kyle Rittenhouse’s Mother Drive Him To The Kenosha Protest While He Was Armed With A Rifle?
> 
> 
> 'Purchased, stored and used in Wisconsin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> checkyourfact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even though it may not have been the "news" media, it was media and ended up being part of the narrative, which was my point.  Much of what was circulating was misinformation, so if that is all you read, then yes you were probably surprised by the verdict.



One story/meme, widely shared on Facebook and Twitter… is your example of “much of the reporting” being inaccurate.

Facebook, instagram, Twitter posts are not “reporting.” All the railing against the ”MSM” by the right is disastrous, and this is an example of why. Now you’ve got people that consider something to be “reporting” if it’s a tweet or Instagram post with a lot of likes or re-tweets or whatever? The MSM got this RIGHT. It’s random idiots on social media that got it wrong. If you wanted an argument for why actual journalism is important, this is a perfect example.

So, quit -ing on the MSM; it looks like most news organizations got this right. They actually work to distribute accurate information.


----------



## SuperMatt

FYI - The guy who bought the gun for Rittenhouse could do time while Rittenhouse goes free.









						Man faces 12 years for buying gun Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shootings
					

Dominick Black, 19, of Racine, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, causing death.




					www.wisn.com


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> One story/meme, widely shared on Facebook and Twitter… is your example of “much of the reporting” being inaccurate.
> 
> Facebook, instagram, Twitter posts are not “reporting.” All the railing against the ”MSM” by the right is disastrous, and this is an example of why. Now you’ve got people that consider something to be “reporting” if it’s a tweet or Instagram post with a lot of likes or re-tweets or whatever? The MSM got this RIGHT. It’s random idiots on social media that got it wrong. If you wanted an argument for why actual journalism is important, this is a perfect example.
> 
> So, quit -ing on the MSM; it looks like most news organizations got this right. They actually work to distribute accurate information.




You may be right.  

So can I   on the Democratic Representative from CA who said 1) His mother drove him and 2) drove him with the gun in an interview with Jake Tapper on November 14th.  So not just Social Media spewing misinformation, but an elected Congresswoman.  

The tape cuts off so I have no idea if Tapper corrects her or lets it stand.  Tapper is usually pretty good about facts so I hope he did.  









						'Ridiculous:' Rep. Karen Bass on Rittenhouse case - CNN Video
					

Democratic Rep. Karen Bass talks with CNN's Jake Tapper about the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two people in Kenosha, Wisconsin.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## Alli

All I know is I’m angry and there’s nothing I can do about it. My heart is breaking that this is being allowed to happen while half the elected officials refuse to pass the equal voting rights act.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> You may be right.
> 
> So can I   on the Democratic Representative from CA who said 1) His mother drove him and 2) drove him with the gun in an interview with Jake Tapper on November 14th.  So not just Social Media spewing misinformation, but an elected Congresswoman.
> 
> The tape cuts off so I have no idea if Tapper corrects her or lets it stand.  Tapper is usually pretty good about facts so I hope he did.



Yes, she should have known better - it was reported a year earlier that his mother didn’t drive him. She probably saw it on social media the day before (it was trending on the 13th) and believed it.

People should NOT get News from social media, period. It’s no different from getting it through this guy:


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> That was a Facebook post, not a news article. I don’t think most people associate “reporting” with a Facebook meme. The “MSM” actually reported the story correctly. Here’s a pic of the “reporting” you’re talking about...
> 
> View attachment 9899
> 
> Yeah, that’s not “reporting” no matter how you slice it. Facebook is infamous for misinformation… this is yet another example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse's mother did not drive him to Kenosha shootings
> 
> 
> Social media posts circulating during the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse claim his mother drove him to the town in the US state of Wisconsin where he shot three people. But the prosecutor trying the case says there is no evidence to support the claim, Rittenhouse and a friend testified about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com




I don't even understand the point of his argument other than obfuscation (as always).  My impression is that KR had his mother's full support in this shit. This is where racism comes into the picture. KR obviously has horrible horrible awful parents who primed him for homicide, yet this case was devoid of condescending remarks of parenting or absentee fathers. Etc. Among many levels of failure, this case is the failure of the White American Parent. Which takes us to White America's issues, complete lack of reckoning or even awareness.



ouimetnick said:


> What kind of parent brings their child to a violent area so their child can “protect” and offer “medical aid”? Would any of you take the risk of placing your own child in harm’s way and bring them to a protest knowing full well the past few days were violent? Would any of you allow your minor child to own a gun? Also, if he was there for medical aid, why did he need a weapon? Do firefighters and other EMT carry AR-15 and other weapons…?



I know EMTs who carry non-firearm self-defense devices. It can be a rough line of business. But I'll say, one of the most ridiculous thing I've seen was these kids playing CoD screaming MEDIC! Then a person who did a basic first aid course (at best, which is like mandatory for a driver's license in the parts of Europe I'm from), runs up and pretends to have a slight idea about how to attend to wounds. FFS.


----------



## SuperMatt

If this is how self-defense law is interpreted, I think this will have a chilling effect on peaceful protests. If counter-protesters show up with assault weapons, they can apparently use even the slightest “feeling” that they are threatened as an excuse to open fire. This could scare people away from demonstrating peacefully. They’ve essentially deputized far-right militias, giving them carte blanche to blatantly provoke others and then gun them down if they respond.

However, if we make self-defense too difficult for a defendant to prove, then we run the risk of sending domestic abuse or rape victims to prison for defending themselves.

I fear this will lead to many more shootings. If everybody thinks they are just “defending themselves” - what’s to stop 2 rival armed groups from an all-out gunfight in the street? And would they let everybody that survived the gunfight go free? Gun laws in this country are terrible, and we are paying the price.









						When it comes to self-defense, the prosecution has a heavier burden. (Published 2021)
					

The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse points to the wide berth given to defendants who say they acted out of fear.




					www.nytimes.com
				




Interesting article here about how the changes to gun laws without corresponding changes to self-defense laws have contributed to the situtation. (Paywall removed)


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> If this is how self-defense law is interpreted, I think this will have a chilling effect on peaceful protests. If counter-protesters show up with assault weapons, they can apparently use even the slightest “feeling” that they are threatened as an excuse to open fire. This could scare people away from demonstrating peacefully. They’ve essentially deputized far-right militias, giving them carte blanche to blatantly provoke others and then gun them down if they respond.
> 
> However, if we make self-defense too difficult for a defendant to prove, then we run the risk of sending domestic abuse or rape victims to prison for defending themselves.
> 
> I fear this will lead to many more shootings. If everybody thinks they are just “defending themselves” - what’s to stop 2 rival armed groups from an all-out gunfight in the street? And would they let everybody that survived the gunfight go free? Gun laws in this country are terrible, and we are paying the price.



This is exactly it. You have a gun, confront (threaten both physically and verbally) and if  the victim resists in any way they then have a right to murder them. This isn't vague either, it's flat out legal precedent now. It's the same institutional problem we have with cops, only now civilians are granted that same authority, and with assault weapons no less.

BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> This is exactly it. You have a gun, confront (threaten both physically and verbally) and if  the victim resists in any way they then have a right to murder them. This isn't vague either, it's flat out legal precedent now. It's the same institutional problem we have with cops, only now civilians are granted that same authority, and with assault weapons no less.
> 
> BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.



I think this is partially due to badly-written laws, but also the judge, prosecution, and jury are to blame. If you sit back for 5 minutes and ask the question: “Was it REASONABLE for Rittenhouse to fear for his life?” The answer is no. Nobody else died at the protest. He was bigger than the person who threw a plastic bag at him. Running around after killing somebody with his gun on display made everybody else think he was a dangerous active shooter, so people trying to take the gun from him were NOT trying to kill him - just disarm him to stop the carnage.

A complete failure of the system led to this acquittal. But really… from the point of view of those who created the system, this is a success. “Social Justice Warriors” will think twice before protesting in the streets of Kenosha now, right?


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> I think this is partially due to badly-written laws, but also the judge, prosecution, and jury are to blame. If you sit back for 5 minutes and ask the question: “Was it REASONABLE for Rittenhouse to fear for his life?” The answer is no. Nobody else died at the protest. He was bigger than the person who threw a plastic bag at him. Running around after killing somebody with his gun on display made everybody else think he was a dangerous active shooter, so people trying to take the gun from him were NOT trying to kill him - just disarm him to stop the carnage.
> 
> A complete failure of the system led to this acquittal. But really… from the point of view of those who created the system, this is a success. “Social Justice Warriors” will think twice before protesting in the streets of Kenosha now, right?





Only memes are left. 
America on her gun violence problem:


----------



## Huntn

Eric said:


> This is exactly it. You have a gun, confront (threaten both physically and verbally) and if  the victim resists in any way they then have a right to murder them. This isn't vague either, it's flat out legal precedent now. It's the same institutional problem we have with cops, only now civilians are granted that same authority, and with assault weapons no less.
> 
> BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.



So if you have your gun, you have a fighting chance except then Ironically,  the judgement will now fall back on established prejudices, _white is right. _So take care if you are a minority, don’r expect any breaks in the courtroom. _ _


----------



## User.45

Eric said:


> This is exactly it. You have a gun, confront (threaten both physically and verbally) and if  the victim resists in any way they then have a right to murder them. This isn't vague either, it's flat out legal precedent now. It's the same institutional problem we have with cops, only now civilians are granted that same authority, and with assault weapons no less.
> 
> BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.



Agree. 

1. Fearing for your life at the sight of an oversized gun is a reasonable response
2. So are we gonna start rewarding people who survive altercations that happen because of the guns?

I agree with @SuperMatt too, this is a precedent that will prime America for civil war (encouragement of armed protests). @yaxomoxay do you think this isn’t a very very very concerning precedent?


----------



## Alli

Eric said:


> BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.



If this had been a Black man, he never would have lived to see a trial. #Facts


----------



## Renzatic

P_X said:


> I agree with @SuperMatt too, this is a precedent that will prime America for civil war (encouragement of armed protests). @yaxomoxay do you think this isn’t a very very very concerning precedent?




I believe some certain special people will assume it does, but will find out very quickly that it does not the moment they attempt it.

Ignoring all the culture war issues, racial implications, and outright favoritism shown to Rittenhouse that surround this case, it doesn't create any precedence that we haven't seen before when it comes to standing your ground and self defense. Well, other than the fact that it may be legal in Wisconsin for anyone below the age of 18 to own and a bear a hunting rifle now.

In the end, I think it's the Arbery case that's the more important one. Rittenhouse's actions were arguably even more shocking and seemingly widespread, but his walking doesn't effect the basis of our judicial system quite as much as it would if the McMichael's get away with their crimes scot free.


----------



## BigMcGuire

P_X said:


> Agree.
> 
> 1. Fearing for your life at the sight of an oversized gun is a reasonable response
> 2. So are we gonna start rewarding people who survive altercations that happen because of the guns?
> 
> I agree with @SuperMatt too, this is a precedent that will prime America for civil war (encouragement of armed protests). @yaxomoxay do you think this isn’t a very very very concerning precedent?



I know you didn’t ask me but I’m worried that it will. There are a *lot* of people out there with guns. There are a lot of people who think the police are being prevented from doing their jobs (and I believe there is some truth to this but that’s another topic) - so they take matters into their own hands. This is only going to encourage more of this type of behavior - untrained people (kids?) with guns out in the streets especially during very stressful situations is the last thing we need right now.

I know how to use guns (I do not own one) and I’ve been to shooting ranges with law enforcement officers before. I’d still freak out if I saw a guy walking around with a rifle like that, especially if he/she wasn’t a law enforcement officer.

My wife and I had the misfortune to live next to a drug house (our first house we rented) and every month it seemed like the swat team would raid the house. Police asked us if they could use our backyard to hop the fence, we said yes so from that point forward, it wasn’t an uncommon sight to see a group of fully armed swat officers enter our back yard every few months. We eventually moved but - my point is: I always figured, we should probably lay on the ground till they clear the house just in case any shooting happened. It’s unnerving even with fully trained police. A kid? Lol.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Too long, Don't read...

The unpleasant take on all of this, and it's ties to race.

Yes, race was a factor in all of this once upon a time, as the protests were over another killing of an unarmed Black man by police.  This happened of course in the wake of George Floyd which was a volatile time, because sad fact such killings won't stop.  In this backdrop under a call to so called arms & a desire to role play being a cop & carrying a 'cool' weapon the kid rolled into town.

Think about the disconnect right there.  All this furor is over the police killing Black men, this kid is psyched about being a cop one day.

He's going to _help_ people one day.





_Sorry, he wasn't legally a man yet at the time..._

Protests broke out.  Riots happened.  For those who remember the other place, what was the one refrain from a few over there?  The concern for property.  Suddenly there was all this concern for places of business that people will NEVER frequent.  "Oh goodness, won't someone think of the businesses & their owners!"  "What about Black people being killed by police?"  _Not realizing the irony to come later during a pandemic..._ "They should have just complied!" 

The kid supposedly went to protect businesses.  Stopping right there.  The underage kid went to another town to get handed a gun, to protect businesses.  Did he get paid?  Did he talk to the owners?  Did he get deputized?  He patrolled with an armed weapon.  Because our country has "vigilantism" baked into's DNA not from comic books, but from the earliest days & slavery.  It got baked into mythology with 'Westerns', where sometimes a man has to pickup 'the steel'.  An underage kid is wandering the streets armed, defying a curfew, during protests, with the seeming approval of the local authorities.  What the FUCK could go wrong there?

_The ultimate kick in the nuts again?  The person who handed the kid a gun will probably face legal consequences, but not the kid who actually used the gun to kill people.  The weapon charge was thrown because of the type of gun, but the guy who gave the kid the gun is still in trouble.  Ookay..._

The kid shot people.  The kid shot WHITE people.

To quote a recent Uber Eats campaign, "That's weird".

Why?  The outrage is missing.  Media is seemingly disappointed that Kenosha isn't a smoking wasteland by now.  Why?  The outrage is missing.  All of this sadly got a shrug, some expected disappointment & resignation, and somehow another White guy got away with killing not one, but two people with NO legal responsibility.  How many of us can say we'd imagine we could kill 2 people no matter the context, and we'd face NO consequences?  Everyone saw a judge, that now doesn't like the light, help steer a course.

Kalief Browder was in jail for 3 years for allegedly stealing a backpack, and no trial.  This kid got a relatively speedy trial for something everyone knows he did.  Kalief Browder was eventually released, and later killed himself because of what he faced in those wrongly imprisoned 3 years.  This kid got handed a judge who the world thinks is weird as fuck, got off scott free, and republicans fighting to make him a congressional ( Kid, please choose Matt Gaetz or Jim Jordan to ride along with ) intern.  Two families are minus family members and no one is legally responsible for their deaths.

That's NOT weird.

We know about Marissa Alexander & the place that's championed 'self defense'.  That's NOT weird.  That's the system,

I digressed, but you get it.  Things are different based on who you are in America.

Even if the crime involves killing White people who had a right to be there as much as the kid, who after he shoots the first person are NOT allowed the same 'self defense' defense the armed kid got.

Whether anyone wants to hear this quiet part out loud, this is one of those times that being White doesn't mean shit.  All those racists pricks who thought they were clever with their "White Lives Matter" signs, aren't thinking of the two people killed by the kid. Those lives wouldn't have mattered unless it was a Black kid who shot them.  Then as we've learned, 'self defense' ( _even in Florida_ ) won't work for the Black kid, and the outrage would have been over flowing.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there is a very real issue coming to play in the future.  It doesn't matter if you are White or Black, if one individual decides to bring a loaded weapon & their feelings in states with open carry, that have protests going on.  A little fear while walking around with a weapon supposedly intended to quell that fear, and the opportunity to shoot or run over someone is now a legal option.

The system now has another means to discourage protest.  Get some vigilantes.  _Doing wonders in Texas with abortions_.

It's our system now, that certain 'justice' loving legislatures have embarked on.  They don't like protests.  They don't like being called on their shit.  They especially didn't like them when it was Black people pissed & demanding not to be killed or shot in the name of 'order'.  They really don't like them when White people are pissed too and join in.

There's an order to things & as I say the judge laid out, people are fucking with that order and need to learn.

If not, they'll bring back the vigilantes.  For EVERYONE.


Also the judge told the jury the kid has the 'privilege' of self defense.






Must be nice IF you can get it.


----------



## ouimetnick

Excuse my ignorance here, but why is he being called a white supremacist? Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Slaughterhouse's victims were white, not black. I'm sure had Mr. Slaughterhouse been black, but everything else was the same (white victims) he's be in the slammer. Thats not Kyle being a white supremacist, that's just systemic racism.


----------



## SuperMatt

ouimetnick said:


> Excuse my ignorance here, but why is he being called a white supremacist? Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Slaughterhouse's victims were white, not black. I'm sure had Mr. Slaughterhouse been black, but everything else was the same (white victims) he's be in the slammer. Thats not Kyle being a white supremacist, that's just systemic racism.











						Kyle Rittenhouse posed for photos with Proud Boys supporters at a bar after being released on $2 million bail, prosecutors say
					

After pleading not guilty to killing two protesters, the 18-year-old went to a bar, where he posed with men making a white supremacist gesture, prosecutors say.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




But the judge didn’t want THAT to be revealed to the jury:









						Prosecutors can’t show Kyle Rittenhouse’s link to Proud Boys: Judge
					

The decision marks a victory for Rittenhouse as he prepares for his trial in November. The ruling removes a line of attack for prosecutors who had hoped to show that Rittenhouse was a “chaos tourist” drawn to Kenosha “like a moth to a flame.”




					chicago.suntimes.com
				




Nor did they allow a recording of him saying he wanted to use his ”AR“ to deal with people that robbed a CVS, nor a video of him beating up a teenage girl.

The judge wanted them to believe Kyle was an angel, trying to save lives, who had to defend himself from a deadly attack by a ”rioter” armed with a plastic bag. The judge allowed slander of the victims (am I allowed to say that word?) but nothing bad to be said about a person that admittedly killed 2 people.


----------



## ouimetnick

SuperMatt said:


> Kyle Rittenhouse posed for photos with Proud Boys supporters at a bar after being released on $2 million bail, prosecutors say
> 
> 
> After pleading not guilty to killing two protesters, the 18-year-old went to a bar, where he posed with men making a white supremacist gesture, prosecutors say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the judge didn’t want THAT to be revealed to the jury:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecutors can’t show Kyle Rittenhouse’s link to Proud Boys: Judge
> 
> 
> The decision marks a victory for Rittenhouse as he prepares for his trial in November. The ruling removes a line of attack for prosecutors who had hoped to show that Rittenhouse was a “chaos tourist” drawn to Kenosha “like a moth to a flame.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chicago.suntimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did they allow a recording of him saying he wanted to use his ”AR“ to deal with people that robbed a CVS, nor a video of him beating up a teenage girl.
> 
> The judge wanted them to believe Kyle was an angel, trying to save lives, who had to defend himself from a deadly attack by a ”rioter” armed with a plastic bag. The judge allowed slander of the victims (am I allowed to say that word?) but nothing bad to be said about a person that admittedly killed 2 people.




I forgot about him posing with that hand gesture. Didn’t even know about him assaulting a girl. 

Interesting observation, that “white power” gesture is also used as a gesture to mean no problem, or 0. Steve Jobs even used it when describing how thin a new apple product was. Musicians and conductors use it when ending a song. Obviously context and intent are important here, but I thought I’d point that out.


----------



## MEJHarrison

ouimetnick said:


> Excuse my ignorance here, but why is he being called a white supremacist? Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Slaughterhouse's victims were white, not black.




My guess is that people are making that assumption based on the fact that he showed up to a protest over a black man being killed, not to support the black man, but to oppose that crowd that supported the black man.  Actions like that do tend to lead an outside observer to certain conclusions.


----------



## Thomas Veil

SuperMatt said:


> ...If everybody thinks they are just “defending themselves” - what’s to stop 2 rival armed groups from an all-out gunfight in the street? And would they let everybody that survived the gunfight go free? Gun laws in this country are terrible, and we are paying the price.




Pretty much the same feeling I had. This tells us that gun laws are so lax in this country that you can take a gun to a volatile situation and use it with the barest justification.

By implication, since the same laws apply to everyone, this tells us that protesters should _also_ take guns to their activities. Yes, I know at least one of the victims had one, but the take away lesson I'm getting here is that perhaps to protect themselves from being shot, run over or whatever, civil rights protesters should arrange to have a ring of AR-15 equipped citizens on the perimeter of their events.

And if a shooting war breaks out, well...that's the culture the right has touted. _C'est la vie._


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> @yaxomoxay do you think this isn’t a very very very concerning precedent?



Well. Let’s define terms first.

As a legal precedent, this doesn’t create any precedent at all. 

As a precedent as in “weapons at a protest/rally” this doesn’t create a precedent either, both for concealed and unconcealed weapons. 

As a political and practical precedent, yes it does create a sort of precedent, especially given the (deserved) attention to this case. Is it a “precedent” that worries me? Yes it does and it worries me especially in this age of echo chambers thru social media. 

Does the “precedent” theory bear any weight on the trial? No, obviously. 

Hope I answered your question.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> In the end, I think it's the Arbery case that's the more important one.




Yes, 100%. I am not sure why the Rittenhouse trial had more coverage than Arbery. Arbery is the real decision here that might define a legal precedent for self defense. 

I admit I haven’t followed it as much as I should (my brain has limited capacity!), but a self defense claim seems very unreasonable in Arbery.


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> Yes, 100%. I am not sure why the Rittenhouse trial had more coverage than Arbery. Arbery is the real decision here that might define a legal precedent for self defense.
> 
> I admit I haven’t followed it as much as I should (my brain has limited capacity!), but a self defense claim seems very unreasonable in Arbery.



Trying to spot how it's any different, in both cases the victims were unarmed and sought out by their killers. It's not until the victims start getting an upper hand that they start crying foul and shooting, the same happened in the Zimmerman case.

In a nutshell, you can arm yourself, start a fight and as soon as they start kicking your ass, murder them. As long as the law allows for it and instructs the jury as such, what choice do they have?


----------



## yaxomoxay

Eric said:


> Trying to spot how it's any different, in both cases the victims were unarmed and sought out by their killers. It's not until the victims start getting an upper hand that they start crying foul and shooting, the same happened in the Zimmerman case.
> 
> In a nutshell, you can arm yourself, start a fight and as soon as they start kicking your ass, murder them. As long as the law allows for it and instructs the jury as such, what choice do they have?



Not talking about Zimmerman (aka the POS) because I don’t know much about his trial other than the few things I read. 

The main difference between Arbery and Rittenhouse is provocation. For the law, the mere presence of a weapon is not enough to be a threat. This is a fact; we might agree with it or we might disagree with it (I do, I do think that my friends on the left have some valid points here), but that’s a simple, basic element of the law as of today.

The Rittenhouse prosecutor was totally unable to prove provocation and intent. They tried with the blurry pic but their case was way too weak (and don’t think that it makes me happy). 

In Arbery we have a different situation. A dude jogging, minding his own business. Again, presence of a weapon isn’t enough so had he simply attacked the two minding their own business they’d be innocent; but from the video it is clear to me that the accused didn’t mind their business, had intent to provoke him (or at least stop him forcefully), and they provoked him to the point he had to react. Again, this is my impression based on what I saw of the trial which is admittedly not much.


----------



## ouimetnick

My question to Kyle Slaughterhouse (and those worshipping him like he’s their god) is why did you go? He claimed to be looking to provide medical aid. You don’t need a gun for that. Do firefighters and EMT carry guns when providing medical aid?

I really want to know why he went. I believe he was LOOKING for trouble. I live near a high school. If riots or protestors happened there, I’m leaving. I’m not protesting or defending my home.. I have home owner’s insurance for that. Why would I join a protest? Do politicians base their decisions and laws off of protestors? I don’t really care about the reason or situation, I’m not going to take the chance of putting my life in danger. Buildings can be rebuilt, lives can’t be reborn. If someone torches my local Mazda dealership, great, they have insurance, I’m not defending it with my life.


----------



## SuperMatt

ouimetnick said:


> My question to Kyle Slaughterhouse (and those worshipping him like he’s their god) is why did you go? He claimed to be looking to provide medical aid. You don’t need a gun for that. Do firefighters and EMT carry guns when providing medical aid?
> 
> I really want to know why he went. I believe he was LOOKING for trouble. I live near a high school. If riots or protestors happened there, I’m leaving. I’m not protesting or defending my home.. I have home owner’s insurance for that. Why would I join a protest? Do politicians base their decisions and laws off of protestors? I don’t really care about the reason or situation, I’m not going to take the chance of putting my life in danger. Buildings can be rebuilt, lives can’t be reborn. If someone torches my local Mazda dealership, great, they have insurance, I’m not defending it with my life.



He was recorded saying he wanted to kill shoplifters with his “AR” but the judge disallowed that evidence. I thought there was a time when prosecutors were allowed to use evidence to indicate MOTIVE. I guess this judge never heard of it or learned it so long ago that he forgot.


----------



## ouimetnick

SuperMatt said:


> He was recorded saying he wanted to kill shoplifters with his “AR” but the judge disallowed that evidence. I thought there was a time when prosecutors were allowed to use evidence to indicate MOTIVE. I guess this judge never heard of it or learned it so long ago that he forgot.




It's not Mr. Slaughterhouse's responsibility to kill shoplifters. Businesses are responsible for securing their own merchandise. Businesses have their own internal loss & theft teams for this reason. Unless Slaughterhouse was properly trained and on payroll, he had no business being there. In fact, I've never heard of loss & theft teams shooting shoplifters either. Thats why I believe he was itching to use his gun. He just needed a good excuse to do so.

As far as my previous statement goes about being at a protest, Rosebaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz shouldn't have been there either... I certainly wouldn't have been, and any one with an ounce of intelligence wouldn't have either.


----------



## JayMysteri0

ouimetnick said:


> I forgot about him posing with that hand gesture. Didn’t even know about him assaulting a girl.
> 
> Interesting observation, that “white power” gesture is also used as a gesture to mean no problem, or 0. Steve Jobs even used it when describing how thin a new apple product was. Musicians and conductors use it when ending a song. Obviously context and intent are important here, but I thought I’d point that out.




Yes we know about the far right's endless appropriation of things that seem innocent, then smirk as they use them.  Whether it's the intellectual property of a cartoonist, Hawaiian shirts, or flashing the 'OK' symbol at odd times.  They think it's clever & cute, and everyone still thinks they are assholes.  We covered this in the other place when people would suddenly throw it up in class pictures, military class pictures, or in court proceedings.  These brain surgeons imagined they were signaling "Hail Hydra" in a Marvel movie, but all it did when spotted was draw attention to themselves & out them.

Strangely, they didn't care for the far left's appropriation of Jack Kirby's Captain America punching nazis meme.



Thomas Veil said:


> Pretty much the same feeling I had. This tells us that gun laws are so lax in this country that you can take a gun to a volatile situation and use it with the barest justification.
> 
> By implication, since the same laws apply to everyone, this tells us that protesters should _also_ take guns to their activities. Yes, I know at least one of the victims had one, but the take away lesson I'm getting here is that perhaps to protect themselves from being shot, run over or whatever, civil rights protesters should arrange to have a ring of AR-15 equipped citizens on the perimeter of their events.
> 
> And if a shooting war breaks out, well...that's the culture the right has touted. _C'est la vie._




It's the inevitable race to the bottom that the extreme right's elite is rushing towards.  The elite know they aren't going to be on the ground when the shooting starts.  Think 'the left' are too weak or rational to go nutters like their own base, and depend on law enforcement that they suck up to, to protect them.  Which means open up the grounds to local vigilante warfare.  If only the right keep responding violently they are either a 'mental health' issue that someone else needs to address, or if they shoot 'the left' they are some version of patriots.

Now if 'the left' should follow them down this road, it's a gift from heaven.  How long has it been since we actually saw anything from ANTIFA, despite how desperately old out of touch White men in congress keep screaming they are around causing trouble?  If 'the left' should take up arms in 'self defense', it will be a sign of the 'extreme far leftists' that so many have cried existed, and you will see law enforcement mobilized like it's a BLM protest, and NOT a Jan 6th insurrection.  There won't be any cops waving to armed children, there will be so much "fear for my life" in the air you'd think it was an Axe body spray convention.

The far right nutters have been begging for a 'race war' that they don't fully grasp the consequences of, because they've been buying guns so long they have to win.

It isn't a race war, it's a race to the bottom, and the fodder are willing to help the elites get their wishes.


https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1462217432504971272/

It begins.

Somebody is going to be found responsible & the CITY is going to pay for the environment that let the kid run around playing cop & kill 2 people, and get away with it.  As usual with these situations especially involving police, the killer will NOT be the one held ultimately responsible, but the city & citizens will be the ones to pay the costs.  I've never been a fan of telling people to sue the pants off of someone, but in this case I am rooting for the families of the kid's VICTIMS to get EVERY fundraised penny this kid will EVER see and MORE in a civil suit.


----------



## User.45

Renzatic said:


> I believe some certain special people will assume it does, but will find out very quickly that it does not the moment they attempt it.



What is “very quickly “ and how many people WILL die in the process? For KR it took more than a year and 2 people. That’s enough time for this to happen multiple times before finding out.


----------



## Renzatic

P_X said:


> What is “very quickly “ and how many people WILL die in the process? For KR it took more than a year and 2 people. That’s enough time for this to happen multiple times before finding out.




We've been seeing a slow escalation towards something absolutely godawful for about 5 years now. We'll see the occasional isolated incident here and there, a few more Kyle Rittenhouse wannabes who think they can get away with shooting they don't like. In the end, some of them will, some of them won't. We won't see any real attempts at change until this reaches the boiling point, and we have no other choice but to acknowledge the sickness we've allowed to fester in this country for so long.

At some point in the not too distant future, we will see a mass killing during a protest. It's an inevitability. Prepare yourself for it now.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> Well. Let’s define terms first.




Man, you have this love/hate relationship with semantics. 



> *prec·e·dent noun | *an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances: there are substantial precedents for using interactive media in training | breaking with all precedent.
> • Law a previous case or legal decision that may be or (binding precedent) must be followed in subsequent similar cases: the decision set a precedent for others to be sent to trial in the US. adjective (precedent | priˈsēd(ə)nt | ) preceding in time, order, or importance: a precedent case.






yaxomoxay said:


> As a legal precedent, this doesn’t create any precedent at all.



Binding, definitely not. An example to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances? Definitely yes. 



yaxomoxay said:


> As a precedent as in “weapons at a protest/rally” this doesn’t create a precedent either, both for concealed and unconcealed weapons.



A guide that gun nuts will consider when deciding on which weapon to take to a protest. Absolutely YES it's a precedent. 



yaxomoxay said:


> As a political and practical precedent, yes it does create a sort of precedent, especially given the (deserved) attention to this case. Is it a “precedent” that worries me? Yes it does and it worries me especially in this age of echo chambers thru social media.




We agree about this one. 


> On Instagram, Cawthorn said in a video: “Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty, my friends. You have a right to defend yourselves. Be armed, be dangerous and be moral.”






yaxomoxay said:


> Does the “precedent” theory bear any weight on the trial? No, obviously.



This sentence is not clear to me and it is based on some assumptions I can't easily pinpoint, I'll try though.
Do you think that a hypothesis (if we are nitpicking terms) that the awareness of this trial changing how people and the law will approach self-defense should not influence the outcome of the trial. Well, it should have influenced the quality it was conducted at. 



yaxomoxay said:


> Hope I answered your question.



Yes I see your opinion better now, which to me impresses as an intellectualized way of minimization and again when it comes to the legal stuff, I'm left in doubt about the substance.


Now that we established you as our resident law expert, please point out to me the precedent(s) that set the impliedly very clear principles that allows people with recorded evidence of explicit intent to engage in activities that are actually illegal in WI (open carry in WI under age 18). Wikipedia:



> Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." However, the exceptions are: “when a person under 18 possesses a rifle or shotgun” or "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult."[8] Wisconsin statute 948.60(3)(c) states: "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."[9]


----------



## SuperMatt

I heard a story on NPR’s Morning Edition today that civil rights protesters are worried about violence against them from vigilantes because of this verdict.

I believe that was the desired result.

By the way, thanks @JayMysteri0 for your posts on this topic. This is bigger than the arguments about this specific trial.

One other thing I was thinking about was: how did they end up with a juror so biased that he was making offensive jokes about Jacob Blake’s shooting? Don’t they want to screen out people with bias? Then I saw that even the jury selection in this trial was a joke:

From a NY Times article:



> Judge Schroeder, known for his loquacious and occasionally cranky courtroom manner, talked to the jury pool about their responsibility as jurors, offering commentary on judicial bias, the history of democracy and the fall of Rome.
> He pushed back against comments from potential jurors who said they had read and talked too much about the trial, which has been an all-consuming topic of conversation in Kenosha for weeks. When one man began explaining that his support for the Second Amendment was so fervent that he did not believe he could serve as an impartial juror, Judge Schroeder stopped him.





> “I want this case to reflect the greatness of Kenosha and the fairness of Kenosha, and I don’t want it to get sidetracked into other issues,” Judge Schroeder said. “I don’t care about your opinions on the Second Amendment.”



Yeah so jurors told him they were biased in favor of the defendant and he let them on the jury anyway.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/01/...0YLjXoyhpN6454GU&referringSource=articleShare


----------



## Thomas Veil

Can you believe this guy? 

Trump boasts that he had 'helped save Kenosha,' calls Rittenhouse not-guilty verdict 'a great decision'​
Former President Donald Trump praised himself after a jury found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges.



> "I helped save Kenosha," Trump said, later on in the interview with Ingraham, specifying that when he was president, he sent in "a lot of people" to deal with the protests following the Blake shooting.





> "You had a governor that, he didn't want to call in anybody," Trump said. "He wanted to just let it burn."





> "We saved it and we saved Kenosha — very early," Trump told Ingraham. “This is supposed to be handled by governors or mayors — they're mostly Democrats."




Yeah.  _Except…_



> Trump last year said he had deployed the National Guard to Wisconsin in the wake of the Blake shooting.





> The AP fact-checked that it was Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, who had activated the National Guard's deployment. The National Guard from Arizona, Michigan, and Alabama came into Wisconsin at the direction of Evers, "not in a federal status," the governor said.




I am _so_ sick of that son of a bitch and his self-inflating lies. 









						Trump boasts that he had 'helped save Kenosha,' calls Rittenhouse not-guilty verdict 'a great decision'
					

Trump falsely claimed he called in the National Guard to handle the protests in Wisconsin following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## GermanSuplex

A


SuperMatt said:


> I think this is partially due to badly-written laws, but also the judge, prosecution, and jury are to blame. If you sit back for 5 minutes and ask the question: “Was it REASONABLE for Rittenhouse to fear for his life?” The answer is no. Nobody else died at the protest. He was bigger than the person who threw a plastic bag at him. Running around after killing somebody with his gun on display made everybody else think he was a dangerous active shooter, so people trying to take the gun from him were NOT trying to kill him - just disarm him to stop the carnage.
> 
> A complete failure of the system led to this acquittal. But really… from the point of view of those who created the system, this is a success. “Social Justice Warriors” will think twice before protesting in the streets of Kenosha now, right?




Yep. I don’t blame the jury either, they were given shit and you can’t convict someone on a flimsy prosecution.

I blame the judge and prosecution, and that pesky systemic racism that people claim doesn’t exist. As was mentioned by someone else earlier, prosecutors and judges are very good at convicting when they want to. Here, they clearly did not want to. Not even a slap on the wrist for this kid.

The right isn’t even promoting this as justice, they’re cracking jokes about this kid being a protector, and the psychos in congress are dead-serious when they say they want to hire him. He’s not a hero, he’s a coward and misguided young man who’s being rewarded by the right for his misdeeds. It’s one thing to believe he shouldn’t have been convicted, it’s another entirely to pretend he did no wrong whatsoever, or was even doing a good deed.

Between this case, the lies being spread about elections and the general vitriol being spewed by the right, the next couple of years are going to be pretty interesting, and NOT in a good way. When conservatives start using their guns on each other, they won’t be able to blame the left. It’s going to take an ugly catastrophe to rope them back into reality.


----------



## User.45

BigMcGuire said:


> I know you didn’t ask me but I’m worried that it will.



Your input is always welcome and appreciated.



BigMcGuire said:


> There are a *lot* of people out there with guns. There are a lot of people who think the police are being prevented from doing their jobs (and I believe there is some truth to this but that’s another topic) - so they take matters into their own hands. This is only going to encourage more of this type of behavior - untrained people (kids?) with guns out in the streets especially during very stressful situations is the last thing we need right now.




IMHO it all boils down to the 400,000,000 firearms Americans bought, own, lose, find, use to feel safer. In reality they actually make society more dangerous, provides US cops with the "reasonable perceptions of imminent and grave harm" and essentially a license to kill (they have a 99.8% chance of not being criminally held acccountable). 




> Annual fatal police shootings per million residents.
> By contrast, national standards in most European countries conform to the European Convention on Human Rights, which impels its 47 signatories to permit only deadly force that is “absolutely necessary” to achieve a lawful purpose. Killings excused under America’s “reasonable belief” standards often violate Europe’s “absolute necessity” standards.











						Why American Cops Kill So Many More Than European Cops
					

Why American Cops Kill So Many More Than European Cops




					www.huffpost.com
				







BigMcGuire said:


> I know how to use guns (I do not own one) and I’ve been to shooting ranges with law enforcement officers before. I’d still freak out if I saw a guy walking around with a rifle like that, especially if he/she wasn’t a law enforcement officer.



Exactly. If I see someone carrying a gun, I first look for insignia suggesting they do it for work. And if I don't see it, I nope the fuck out of there. 




BigMcGuire said:


> My wife and I had the misfortune to live next to a drug house (our first house we rented) and every month it seemed like the swat team would raid the house. Police asked us if they could use our backyard to hop the fence, we said yes so from that point forward, it wasn’t an uncommon sight to see a group of fully armed swat officers enter our back yard every few months. We eventually moved but - my point is: I always figured, we should probably lay on the ground till they clear the house just in case any shooting happened. It’s unnerving even with fully trained police. A kid? Lol.





The narc house story sounds really absurd. The stuff people experience while in college trying to cut corners on cost of living...or the experiences of people who have no other choice.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> This sentence is not clear to me and it is based on some assumptions I can't easily pinpoint, I'll try though.
> Do you think that a hypothesis (if we are nitpicking terms) that the awareness of this trial changing how people and the law will approach self-defense should not influence the outcome of the trial. Well, it should have influenced the quality it was conducted at.



Simpler than that. A jury should not be affected by the verdict of the trial might cause.




P_X said:


> Yes I see your opinion better now, which to me impresses as an intellectualized way of minimization and again when it comes to the legal stuff, I'm left in doubt about the substance.



Ok.


P_X said:


> Now that we established you as our resident law expert,



Again, we ain’t going far with this useless sarcasm. I never claimed to be such, and I actually stated the opposite and that I am simply providing my somewhat uninformed opinion as non expert of the subject in question (criminal law); same as you as far as I know. I hope that the rest of the conversations won’t need this useless, obvious disclaimer because after a while it gets boringly repetitive.

As of now, I have said all I had to say about Mr Rittenhouse’s trial. I don’t have any further comment to add.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Good point by Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe this morning; Rittenhouse is literally the caricature 2A advocates fight against. Yet, here they are celebrating him. I mean, he even admitted on the stand he just wanted the gun because it “looked cool”.

The 2A folks have dropped the pretense of carrying about safe and legal gun ownership - which was always a ruse anyways - and are now just in favor “let whoever has the gun be the last person standing”. They don’t care about gun safety or education, they don’t care about responsible ownership.

There was a time in this country when everyone would have seen Rittenhouse as a menace, guilty of being criminally irresponsible at the very least.

But ever since this country elected a black man as president, senseless killings of people of color are warranted, and if you’re there supporting people of color, you are just as disposable as well.

*Seems he already sat down for an interview with Tucker Carlson . He professes to back the BLM… yeah right. I don’t blame him for doing an interview or trying to repair his image, but time will tell how this plays out. I don’t wish him ill will. He’s a misguided youth. But if you’re trying to gain sympathy, you’re not going to do it by sitting with someone who preaches replacement theory.


----------



## Huntn

I’ve had guns for years. Besides the 357,  I’ve got a little one that fits nicely in my pocket. Maybe I’ll starting carrying it to defend myself from 2A ASSHOLES. I gave my shotgun to my son a decade ago cause I gave up hunting. Maybe it’s time to get another and a couple of 9mils, a pretty one for the missus,

*Regarding the Kyle Case outcome, *There is the quick and the not so quick Dead. Good luck legal system with your legal nightmare.  Actually 2 white guys might actually be a harder decision, but when it comes to 2A logic the fastest draw should get skill points and the benefit of the doubt for being dedicated to _My Precious! _Unfortunately a duel between a black and a white citizen, the black will still be at a serious disadvantage in most places. Whites don’t like giving up their perceived social privilege armed or unarmed. 


*The New Standard:*
You know:  “_this unsettled 2A white vigilante type pointed his gun in my direction and I felt threatened, it was him or me, better be proactive or find myself dead. My self defense out trumped his…cause I’m still around to tell you how I feared for my life”. <- vigilante law._


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> Simpler than that. A jury should not be affected by the verdict of the trial might cause.



The trial is more than the jury. This is "obvious."



yaxomoxay said:


> Again, we ain’t going far with this useless sarcasm. I never claimed to be such, and I actually stated the opposite and that I am simply providing my somewhat uninformed opinion as non expert of the subject in question (criminal law); same as you as far as I know. I hope that the rest of the conversations won’t need this useless, obvious disclaimer because after a while it gets boringly repetitive.



Well, sarcasm did get the point across about how irritating explicit modesty is when followed up by implicit _sense_ of expertise.



yaxomoxay said:


> As of now, I have said all I had to say about Mr Rittenhouse’s trial.



Agree, we ran out of content.


----------



## User.45

Not. A. Precedent.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Yes first time people show up at rally’s with rifles and such. Never happened before 2020 and before this trial. Never. Finally the precedent is in.

But you know, I ain’t no expert.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> Yes first time people show up at rally’s with rifles and such. Never happened before 2020 and before this trial. Never. Finally the precedent is in.
> 
> But you know, I ain’t no expert.



I appreciate the useless sarcasm. Bear in mind, she's 16...

Thanks BTW, you couldn’t provide a more efficient example what I was pointing out: a condescending delivery of erroneous semantics to trivialize real-world issues. Bonus point for abandoning your principles on avoiding sarcasm. 

Cheers.


----------



## Pumbaa

P_X said:


> Not. A. Precedent.



That scope, though…


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.45

Pumbaa said:


> That scope, though…



I know. The scope is the most. undefendable choice here. But I think the idea is that his 16-year-old daughter will cover him while he's sniping. 



theSeb said:


> I think the US is far beyond a boiling point. Just look at how many school shootings there are on a fairly regular basis. Many people don't even realise it, because it's the old frog in a slow boiling pot being boiled alive scenario.



This is why I get extremely pissed when someone implies that this is normal. Nothing is normal in this, except for one thing: 
weapon manufacturers making bank.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.45

theSeb said:


> Open carry of semi-automatic rifles was not normal not that long ago in the US. I can only see one outcome and that is the pot boiling over.



It _cannot_ be normal for long time. It’s like smoking, leaded fuel, climate change or COVID. We’ll always get a set of men swearing it’s all good, because they promise.


----------



## Huntn

P_X said:


> Not. A. Precedent.



The reality is that people of color have always been in more danger, especially when they are holding a gun. But with this 2A craziness, at least they have leveled the playing field somewhat. The irony is that blacks have the exact same reasons to arm themselves as fearful whites who got the _arm yourself_ movement started.

Actually what I’m waiting to see some racist geniuses come up with _no minorities with gun_ zones.

Despite the 2A, guns should be illegal at protests period. The problem is that culturally this country is too far gone, and the gun nuts outnumber the police. It’s a mental movement and the people of color better get themselves armed to stand any kind of a chance.

And if you are a anti-gun liberal, you’d better get yourself armed up for the near future conflict in this country when the Trump shitheads decide if conservative (gun owners) don’t win an election it could only be because it was stolen. If you get enough of these people populating the police and armed force, we are in deep shit, you’d better be armed.


----------



## Huntn

yaxomoxay said:


> Yes first time people show up at rally’s with rifles and such. Never happened before 2020 and before this trial. Never. Finally the precedent is in.
> 
> But you know, I ain’t no expert.



I’d like you to clarify if your statement is a general statement or if the _first time seeing rifles at a protest _is attributed to this image of 2 people of color carrying rifles at a protest? I’m confident this is no where near the first time firearms including rifles have been brought to a protest.

I’d also be curious to know  how you feel about weapons at a protest? My standard is that  protest with weapons is a terrible idea, a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Huntn

theSeb said:


> Open carry of semi-automatic rifles was not normal not that long ago in the US. I can only see one outcome and that is the pot boiling over.



This should not be viewed as a new development, but the natural evolution of the 2A movement in this country, starting in the 1960s at the hands of a variety of Pro-Gun forces who don’t trust authority or democracy. Hand gun, long gun, semi-automatic rifle, machine gun, bazooka, you just can’t be too safe. 

This also includes redefining self defense allowing people with guns to murder those without and walk based on a simple statement, _I feared for my life... and I had a gun. _Early example Zimmerman-Martin, latest example Rittenhouse. This is a direct result of the US gun movement. And at this point IMO, there is only one viable solution to restablish the status quo, arm everyone.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Huntn said:


> I’d like you to clarify if your statement is a general statement or if the _first time seeing rifles at a protest _is attributed to this image of 2 people of color carrying rifles at a protest? I’m confident this is no where near the first time firearms including rifles have been brought to a protest.




Mine was intended as a sarcastic remark on the fact that firearms - including rifles etc. - at a protest/rally in the US is nothing new. 


Huntn said:


> I’d also be curious to know  how you feel about weapons at a protest? My standard is that  protest with weapons is a terrible idea, a recipe for disaster.



Of course it’s a terrible idea.


----------



## SuperMatt

theSeb said:


> Open carry of semi-automatic rifles was not normal not that long ago in the US. I can only see one outcome and that is the pot boiling over.



Don’t forget, Ronald Reagan banned open carry in California when he was governor. Why? Black people were carrying openly. And Republicans were VERY supportive of restricting 2nd amendment rights... if the “wrong” people are exercising those rights.





__





						Mulford Act - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## User.45

Huntn said:


> I’d like you to clarify if your statement is a general statement or if the _first time seeing rifles at a protest _is attributed to this image of 2 people of color carrying rifles at a protest? I’m confident this is no where near the first time firearms including rifles have been brought to a protest.





yaxomoxay said:


> Mine was intended as a sarcastic remark on the fact that firearms - including rifles etc. - at a protest/rally in the US is nothing new.




Simple, @yaxomoxay implies  that precedent is another word for novelty. Webster and I think it means a preceding event that guides future decision making. 

Ironically the photo I posted is as close as it gets to cover both of these definitions when applied to the KR trial. Unless we now think that armed minors open carrying  at protests are nothing new.

It only took a day to prove me correct.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> Don’t forget, Ronald Reagan banned open carry in California when he was governor. Why? Black people were carrying openly. And Republicans were VERY supportive of restricting 2nd amendment rights... if the “wrong” people are exercising those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mulford Act - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



This is why I have an ambivalent feeling coming over me when I see Blacks open carry. I'm repulsed, but I also know that there's nothing more effective to convince White people about the need for gun control.


----------



## Huntn

P_X said:


> This is why I have an ambivalent feeling coming over me when I see Blacks open carry. I'm repulsed, but I also know that there's nothing more effective to convince White people about the need for gun control.



Word is that was the original origins of gun control, was keeping guns out of former slave's hand, a racial motivation, a sad history with more cementing the racist history of the US. The thing is the white privileged will likely use a favored narrative of why minorities with guns are a real threat, and whites are just defending themselves. 

I've always been pro-gun control, but at this point in time, if you are not armed, you are at a distinct disadvantage during 2A mania. A significant portion of the country seems to prefer bullets, or the threat of bullets over laws that hinder their ability to caress Precious including in public.


----------



## yaxomoxay

P_X said:


> Simple, @yaxomoxay implies  that precedent is another word for novelty. Webster and I think it means a preceding event that guides future decision making.



I love how you’re on my case but don’t even try to read, let alone understand, what I write.

I wrote myself that on a political and practical level, the Rittenhouse trial is a precedent and one that worries me. Which is, I guess, what your picture is meant to signify. Historically, your picture is nothing new (albeit disturbing as always) and unchanged from before the trial. Politically and practically, yes - this trial will be used by individuals in their decision making process. 

When you asked, I wrote my reply in English. I wrote it in clear terms that would be understood by a third grader. And I wrote it separating legal, historical, political, and practical “precedent” because the term can be applied at different levels with different outcomes and meanings. The word “novelty” - or it being attached to this topic -  applied so generically is of your making, not mine.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Lauren Boebert Challenges Wheelchair-Bound Madison Cawthorn to a 'Sprint' to Land Kyle Rittenhouse Internship
					

"Madison Cawthorn has some pretty big guns, and so I would like to challenge him to a sprint instead. Let's make this fair."




					www.mediaite.com
				




Whether you think it was justified or not, the fact is he went out of his way to go to a volatile location and ended up killing 2 people based on the fact that he was there.  Anybody thinking that alone qualifies him for a political job is beyond sick and symbolic of the complete moral decay of some of our representatives.  It’s profoundly disturbing.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> The word “novelty” - or it being attached to this topic -  applied so generically is of your making, not mine.



Well, if you fail to actually define terms, I can only work with what you're giving me:


yaxomoxay said:


> As a precedent as in “weapons at a protest/rally” this doesn’t create a precedent either, both for concealed and unconcealed weapons.





yaxomoxay said:


> Mine was intended as a sarcastic remark on the fact that firearms - including rifles etc. - at a protest/rally in the US is nothing new.





yaxomoxay said:


> Historically, your picture is nothing new (albeit disturbing as always) and unchanged from before the trial.



The moment armed minors got involved, your _ad nauseam _repeated "armed protests are nothing new" and "not a precedent" arguments went out the window and you know it.

To be quantitative, if you google ("armed minor*" AND "protest*") with a time filter on, you'll get about 9 hits from the history of time to 2020. And then 23 hits from 2020. If you remove the time filter, most posts will be about KR, and a few discussing the photo above. So please don't even try gaslighting about this. 

So to summarize it, after I pointed out how WI's law on minors open carrying is open to interpretation, within a day a parent decided that it's appropriate to arm their child, take them to a heated protest, and in the absence of her getting slapped with a Class A misdemeanor, we can also say that the law's new interpretation is clear now.


----------



## User.45

Huntn said:


> Word is that was the original origins of gun control, was keeping guns out of former slave's hand, a racial motivation, a sad history with more cementing the racist history of the US. The thing is the white privileged will likely use a favored narrative of why minorities with guns are a real threat, and whites are just defending themselves.



Yes, that's the history I'm familiar with too. (Based on wikipedia diving few years back)



Huntn said:


> I've always been pro-gun control, but at this point in time, if you are not armed, you are at a distinct disadvantage during 2A mania. A significant portion of the country seems to prefer bullets, or the threat of bullets over laws that hinder their ability to caress Precious including in public.



Here's the major issue. What are the drivers of 2A mania? Prehistoric human behavior and gun lobby capitalizing on it. Throwing your money at the gun lobby will not make things better. One issue in America is that people have a very poor understanding of the safety of their environment. I lived in numerous "murder capitals" in the USA, never had a gun. Hardly witnessed a crime, let alone got mugged or murdered.


----------



## Alli

I’d like to ask a personal favor of P_X and yaxomoxay. Y’all are beginning to sound like an old married couple, constantly picking at each other. Would it hurt to tone it down just a little?


----------



## User.45

Alli said:


> I’d like to ask a personal favor of P_X and yaxomoxay. Y’all are beginning to sound like an old married couple, constantly picking at each other. Would it hurt to tone it down just a little?



Yes Dr @Alli. I'll close with a meme then.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> Well, if you fail to actually define terms, I can only work with what you're giving me:
> 
> 
> 
> The moment armed minors got involved, your _ad nauseam _repeated "armed protests are nothing new" and "not a precedent" arguments went out the window and you know it.
> 
> To be quantitative, if you google ("armed minor*" AND "protest*") with a time filter on, you'll get about 9 hits from the history of time to 2020. And then 23 hits from 2020. If you remove the time filter, most posts will be about KR, and a few discussing the photo above. So please don't even try gaslighting about this.
> 
> So to summarize it, after I pointed out how WI's law on minors open carrying is open to interpretation, within a day a parent decided that it's appropriate to arm their child, take them to a heated protest, and in the absence of her getting slapped with a Class A misdemeanor, we can also say that the law's new interpretation is clear now.



We often see child soldiers in 3rd world conflicts. Now it’s happening in America with armed children at culture war protests killing people. There is lots of precedent for children being enlisted to fight in other parts of the world... but is that what we want for America?


----------



## Huntn

P_X said:


> Yes, that's the history I'm familiar with too. (Based on wikipedia diving few years back)
> 
> 
> Here's the major issue. What are the drivers of 2A mania? Prehistoric human behavior and gun lobby capitalizing on it. Throwing your money at the gun lobby will not make things better. One issue in America is that people have a very poor understanding of the safety of their environment. I lived in numerous "murder capitals" in the USA, never had a gun. Hardly witnessed a crime, let alone got mugged or murdered.



My response has a direct correlation to my frustration regarding the state of  gun control, which is becoming non-control, the ridiculous, nonsensical, and new selfish  perception of what self defense  is about. What used to be a fist fight or a mugging is now elevated to killings based on a untenable standard, the individual perception or abuse of the words _I was fearful...so me killing you is justified, _enabled by the convenient trigger of a weapon. 

Do you remember all of those situations capture on film where police officers yell “GUN!”, it is because guns are rightfully viewed as threats to safety. The Rittenhouse verdict amply displays this phenomena, that the law as viewed in some parts of the country, where guns used to be perceived as a threat, now gives preference to the armed individual and his right to summarily execute anyone who rightfully regards him as the threat. For a case like this it seems to take individuals with guns to counter the individuals with guns. 

In this case what if the three individuals killed or wounded by him had also had guns and there was a gun fight? My understanding is that his victims were white, and I’m trying to imagine how this jury would have dealt with the verdict if all participants had been armed? All 4 people could claim fear for  their lives especially those who ended up dead. Then what standard would be used to determine guilt? It might fall back on individual juror’s like or dislike of protests To decide guilt or innocence.

The real problem here is that typical private citizens are not trained for conflict, they have no self restraint or they overreact, and do we really want to turn over law enforcement to the judgement of any individual who shows up at a protest ready to shoot?

The Rittenhouse jury decided that it did not matter that he was a stranger to the community, showing up with a gun which in itself is a threat of violence,, that  he was not a provocateur, his right to carry a gun and use it in any kind of conflict he deemed appropriate, trumped every other legal consideration, and ignored established tenants of public safety.


----------



## SuperMatt

Huntn said:


> The Rittenhouse jury decided that it did not matter that he was a stranger to the community, showing up with a gun which in itself is a threat of violence,, that  he was not a provocateur, his right to carry a gun and use it in any kind of conflict he deemed appropriate, trumped every other legal consideration, and ignored established tenants of public safety.



In defense of the jurors, the judge excluded almost all the evidence that went to motive. Showing past examples of Rittenhouse’s violent tendencies towards women and his stated desire to shoot shoplifters might have given the jurors some indication of his motives. Instead, they were left thinking he had no motive at all, and was just reacting “in the moment” which was clearly false.

The jurors do have some responsibility too though: they chose to ignore the obvious fact that showing up at a mob scene with a clearly displayed assault weapon and picking fights is a provocation in and of itself. Not to mention that he killed a person trying to disarm him after witnessing Rittenhouse shoot another person.

This acquittal is absurd. And if it is “legally” correct, then we need to change the laws in this country so that it is no longer LEGAL to do what he did.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Donald Trump calls Kyle Rittenhouse ‘really a nice young man’ after visit
					

The teenager who was acquitted after killing two people in Kenosha visited the former president at his Mar-a-Lago resort




					www.theguardian.com
				




Gross. Talk about vomit-inducing.


----------



## Joe

GermanSuplex said:


> Donald Trump calls Kyle Rittenhouse ‘really a nice young man’ after visit
> 
> 
> The teenager who was acquitted after killing two people in Kenosha visited the former president at his Mar-a-Lago resort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gross. Talk about vomit-inducing.




lol, 2 people with middle school vocabularies getting along. Shocker!


----------



## Joe

Black folks, and other minorities. Start arming yourself if you haven't already. You'll need to protect yourself when these crazy white fuck trump supporters do stupid shit.


----------



## Huntn

SuperMatt said:


> In defense of the jurors, the judge excluded almost all the evidence that went to motive. Showing past examples of Rittenhouse’s violent tendencies towards women and his stated desire to shoot shoplifters might have given the jurors some indication of his motives. Instead, they were left thinking he had no motive at all, and was just reacting “in the moment” which was clearly false.
> 
> The jurors do have some responsibility too though: they chose to ignore the obvious fact that showing up at a mob scene with a clearly displayed assault weapon and picking fights is a provocation in and of itself. Not to mention that he killed a person trying to disarm him after witnessing Rittenhouse shoot another person.
> 
> This acquittal is absurd. And if it is “legally” correct, then we need to change the laws in this country so that it is no longer LEGAL to do what he did.



I’m completely bewildered as to why when the judge disallowed the dead victims being referred to as victims why this did not go mistrial immediately. Did the legal entity who had jurisdiction to make this call, drop the ball or condone this miscarriage of Justice?

Clearly I am not a lawyer, I’ve never heard that a mistrial prevented a defendant from being tried again. This article says “mistrial with prejudice” by the defense.  Maybe the  prosecution can’t call for a mistrial? The thing is in this case it would the prosecution who should ask for a new judge as this one was clearly prejudiced against the dead victims.









						A Kyle Rittenhouse Mistrial is Unlikely. Here's Why
					

Lead prosecutor Thomas Binger angered the judge with his line of questioning, with the defense suggesting he was purposely trying to have case thrown out.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## Huntn

JagRunner said:


> Black folks, and other minorities. Start arming yourself if you haven't already. You'll need to protect yourself when these crazy white fuck trump supporters do stupid shit.



 Upfront this sounds like a reckless statement, but this kind of verdict encourages the gun nut vigilante types,  so now it’s a self fulfilling prophesy. But the primary caveat still remains, if it is black versus white, and you are black, don’t expect any breaks in court. That most likely will play out as usual.


----------



## ronntaylor

Huntn said:


> Upfront this sounds like a reckless statement, but this kind of verdict encourages the gun nut vigilante types,  so now it’s a self fulfilling prophesy. But the primary caveat still remains, if it is black versus white, and you are black, don’t expect any breaks in court. That most likely will play out as usual.



Black  people can't bird watch, jog or simply walk. Now some want them to walk around armed? I'd ask Philando Castile what he thinks, but he's dead for simply being a legally allowed gun owner that happened to be Black.


----------



## Joe

ronntaylor said:


> Black  people can't bird watch, jog or simply walk. Now some want them to walk around armed? I'd ask Philando Castile what he thinks, but he's dead for simply being a legally allowed gun owner that happened to be Black.




Let me know if you need any help


----------



## Huntn

ronntaylor said:


> Black  people can't bird watch, jog or simply walk. Now some want them to walk around armed? I'd ask Philando Castile what he thinks, but he's dead for simply being a legally allowed gun owner that happened to be Black.



You have a point. I acknowledge that if Mr Arbery had been armed it would not have saved him, but someone might have joined him.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> We often see child soldiers in 3rd world conflicts. Now it’s happening in America with armed children at culture war protests killing people. There is lots of precedent for children being enlisted to fight in other parts of the world... but is that what we want for America?



Yup. When I searched for "armed minors at protests" one of the set of events I found was Mexican drug cartels arming kids.... It's usually not a sign of things headed in a good direction. Kids


Huntn said:


> My response has a direct correlation to my frustration regarding the state of  gun control, which is becoming non-control, the ridiculous, nonsensical, and new selfish  perception of what self defense  is about. What used to be a fist fight or a mugging is now elevated to killings based on a untenable standard, the individual perception or abuse of the words _I was fearful...so me killing you is justified, _enabled by the convenient trigger of a weapon.
> 
> Do you remember all of those situations capture on film where police officers yell “GUN!”, it is because guns are rightfully viewed as threats to safety. The Rittenhouse verdict amply displays this phenomena, that the law as viewed in some parts of the country, where guns used to be perceived as a threat, now gives preference to the armed individual and his right to summarily execute anyone who rightfully regards him as the threat. For a case like this it seems to take individuals with guns to counter the individuals with guns.
> 
> In this case what if the three individuals killed or wounded by him had also had guns and there was a gun fight? My understanding is that his victims were white, and I’m trying to imagine how this jury would have dealt with the verdict if all participants had been armed? All 4 people could claim fear for  their lives especially those who ended up dead. Then what standard would be used to determine guilt? It might fall back on individual juror’s like or dislike of protests To decide guilt or innocence.
> 
> The real problem here is that typical private citizens are not trained for conflict, they have no self restraint or they overreact, and do we really want to turn over law enforcement to the judgement of any individual who shows up at a protest ready to shoot?
> 
> The Rittenhouse jury decided that it did not matter that he was a stranger to the community, showing up with a gun which in itself is a threat of violence,, that  he was not a provocateur, his right to carry a gun and use it in any kind of conflict he deemed appropriate, trumped every other legal consideration, and ignored established tenants of public safety.



I don't have much to add to this. There had been hypothetical scenarios where there is a bad guy with a gun, who gets shot by a good guy with a gun who gets shot by another good guy who had only seen the part where the bad guy got shot. Instant chaos. We often criticize cops for messing up situations like this, but in all fairness, you can't train well enough for shit shows like this. From my personal experience, hospital codes rarely run as smoothly as it is depicted on TV and they don't even have the extra stress of personal safety being at risk. 



SuperMatt said:


> In defense of the jurors, the judge excluded almost all the evidence that went to motive. Showing past examples of Rittenhouse’s violent tendencies towards women and his stated desire to shoot shoplifters might have given the jurors some indication of his motives. Instead, they were left thinking he had no motive at all, and was just reacting “in the moment” which was clearly false.
> 
> The jurors do have some responsibility too though: they chose to ignore the obvious fact that showing up at a mob scene with a clearly displayed assault weapon and picking fights is a provocation in and of itself. Not to mention that he killed a person trying to disarm him after witnessing Rittenhouse shoot another person.
> 
> This acquittal is absurd. And if it is “legally” correct, then we need to change the laws in this country so that it is no longer LEGAL to do what he did.



I'm don't have (to pretend to have) the competency to comment on the legal part, but my impression that the judge absolutely primed the jury for an acquittal. 



JagRunner said:


> Black folks, and other minorities. Start arming yourself if you haven't already. You'll need to protect yourself when these crazy white fuck trump supporters do stupid shit.



Nobody should do that. For real. I'm baffled why anybody would want to reward the gun lobby for problems cause by the gun lobby. 



ronntaylor said:


> Now some want them to walk around armed? I'd ask Philando Castile what he thinks, but he's dead for simply being a legally allowed gun owner that happened to be Black.



Absolutely this.


----------



## Joe

Believe it or not, but people don't Open Carry everywhere, even in Texas. I never see anyone other than a police officer with a weapon. If someone is carrying it is most likely concealed or hidden in their vehicle. 

The only time I see people open carry are at these stupid redneck rallies they were having to defend confederate statues. Other than that, it is not the wild wild west that everyone thinks lol 

Get you some protection and learn how to properly use it. You're gonna need it to protect yourself from crazy trump folks that get crazier and crazier every year. You've been warned


----------



## User.45

JagRunner said:


> Believe it or not, but people don't Open Carry everywhere, even in Texas. I never see anyone other than a police officer with a weapon. If someone is carrying it is most likely concealed or hidden in their vehicle.
> 
> The only time I see people open carry are at these stupid redneck rallies they were having to defend confederate statues. Other than that, it is not the wild wild west that everyone thinks lol
> 
> Get you some protection and learn how to properly use it. You're gonna need it to protect yourself from crazy trump folks that get crazier and crazier every year. You've been warned



It is the WWW just in a more subtle way. Look up where the bulk of "stolen" weapons flood the rest of the country from. And then we do this hand-wringing and say "gUn coNtROl dOesN't wORk! It start with people not keeping their guns in their cars where they get stolen.


----------



## JayMysteri0

JagRunner said:


> Get you some protection and learn how to properly use it. You're gonna need it to protect yourself from crazy trump folks that get crazier and crazier every year. You've been warned



That's some dangerous advice for SOME people.



> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/25/a-black-off-duty-cop-tried-to-help-stop-a-crime-another-officer-shot-him/





> Soldier Tried to Help Victims in Ala. Mall Shooting Before Police Killed Him, Family Seeks Charges
> 
> 
> EJ Bradford, 21, was shot three times -- in the back, the back of his neck and his head, according to an autopsy report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people.com




The system is intended that only one group of people would be allowed to defend themselves AND proactively carry guns to protect car dealerships in another town.

Unfortunately the best piece of advice for many is making sure the cameras on your phones work, it MAY help get the people who harm OTHERS convicted.


----------



## MEJHarrison

JagRunner said:


> Believe it or not, but people don't Open Carry everywhere, even in Texas. I never see anyone other than a police officer with a weapon. If someone is carrying it is most likely concealed or hidden in their vehicle.




I saw some clown over the summer open carrying a weapon.  We were at the food trucks across the street from City Hall.  And I don't live in some tiny town here in Oregon.  I'm in Beaverton where Nike is headquartered.  We're a major suburb of Portland.  BG's Food Cartel next to city hall is a not a place where you might need to fight off a bear.  Also, based on his overall appearance, I'd bet my next paycheck that if he's even been near a cop uniform, he was probably in cuffs.  There's no way this was an off duty officer.  Just some fool toting a gun around in a place where he would be very likely to hit an innocent person if he were to attempt to use it.  From that spot, there's trucks in pretty much all directions.

This photo is from just when the place originally opened.  But he was hanging around where the red food truck is.  You can clearly see City Hall on the building behind this place.

Also included is a picture of Nick Offerman at a book signing about 1/4 mile from those food trucks.  Has nothing to do with the rest of my post, but I came across it as I was looking for the other photo.  And it's Nick Offerman!  I've loved him in pretty much everything I've seen him in.  But he was there to talk woodworking that day.  Still a hilarious guy, even when talking about wood.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy




----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

JayMysteri0 said:


> That's some dangerous advice for SOME people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The system is intended that only one group of people would be allowed to defend themselves AND proactively carry guns to protect car dealerships in another town.
> 
> Unfortunately the best piece of advice for many is making sure the cameras on your phones work, it MAY help get the people who harm OTHERS convicted.




I think it’s an interesting mindset that I don’t have.  If in a potentially dangerous situation I think my reflex reaction would be to get away from it, not bust out my phone and start filming it. I might also be a bit paranoid about this, but I think becoming an impromptu on the scene reporter might also make you a target. It seems like we’re starting to get to the point where filming something is no longer plays a part in defusing a situation, might even serve as an irritant to some true believer (in whatever) who is willing to be some kind of martyr to the cause.  But luckily there’s no shortage of other people who want to film anything and everything.  I even believe there are people hoping to catch something juicy with little empathy for the actual situation.  I suppose if it helps justice then the actual motivation for recording it doesn’t really matter.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


>



Serious question: does anybody really watch these youtube commentaries? I absolutely hate everything about these. Write it down so I can read it 5x faster. 
BTW, WTF is "based"? It's like terms like gaslight or narcissist, SocMed Y-ers pick it them up and use them as catch-alls for everything.


----------



## Huntn

JayMysteri0 said:


> That's some dangerous advice for SOME people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The system is intended that only one group of people would be allowed to defend themselves AND proactively carry guns to protect car dealerships in another town.
> 
> Unfortunately the best piece of advice for many is making sure the cameras on your phones work, it MAY help get the people who harm OTHERS convicted.



Without much doubt this seems to illustrates the racist nature of our society, open carry, arm yourself, but keep an eye on the black guy, and if reaches for the gun he is allowed to carry, shoot first and ask questions later. And later he will be blamed for acting suspiciously being black. It’s sickening how blatant and simultaneously denied this Is.

The police who shot the black soldier helping people, if makes me so angery, I want these guys tried for reckless, racist homicide,


----------



## Huntn

P_X said:


> Serious question: does anybody really watch these youtube commentaries? I absolutely hate everything about these. Write it down so I can read it 5x faster.
> BTW, WTF is "based"? It's like terms like gaslight or narcissist, SocMed Y-ers pick it them up and use them as catch-alls for everything.



I listened to the first 7 min and most of what this guy says seems reasonable. He even changed my mind on the judge not allowing the victims to be referred to as victims, from a legal standpoint point. One thing I  disagreed with is not allowing the video where Rittenhouse says he wished he could shoot two people outside of a CVS drug store that took place 2 weeks prior because this is his vigilante frame of mind on display, just prior to the protests.


----------



## SuperMatt

Huntn said:


> I listened to the first 7 min and most of what this guy says seems reasonable. He even changed my mind on the judge not allowing the victims to be referred to as victims, from a legal standpoint point. One thing I  disagreed with is not allowing the video where Rittenhouse says he wished he could shoot two people outside of a CVS drug store that took place 2 weeks prior because this is his vigilante frame of mind on display, just prior to the protests.



Normally, the defense must file a motion to have possibly prejudicial terms like “victim” disallowed. And that is often denied by a judge. This judge did the defense’s job for them, without being asked. And the truly absurd thing is that he allowed terms like “rioter” or “looter” to be used to describe the shooting victims. He was biased, period. Look at other trials and you’ll see how slanted this guy was for Rittenhouse. As mentioned before, the jury selection was a complete joke; the judge actually wanted to KEEP people that admitted they were too biased due to their strong 2nd amendment support (aka being a gun nut).


----------



## Huntn

SuperMatt said:


> Normally, the defense must file a motion to have possibly prejudicial terms like “victim” disallowed. And that is often denied by a judge. This judge did the defense’s job for them, without being asked. *And the truly absurd thing is that he allowed terms like “rioter” or “looter” to be used to describe the shooting victims.* He was biased, period. Look at other trials and you’ll see how slanted this guy was for Rittenhouse. As mentioned before, the jury selection was a complete joke; *the judge actually wanted to KEEP people that admitted they were too biased due to their strong 2nd amendment support (aka being a gun nut).*



Agreed on these points! The latter is unacceptably bias.


----------



## SuperMatt

I recall there was another person a while back who shot somebody at a protest and claimed self-defense. The police treated him a bit differently than they did Rittenhouse.









						Suspect in killing of right-wing protester fatally shot during arrest
					

Michael Reinoehl, who described himself as "100% ANTIFA," was killed as a federal task force attempted to apprehend him in Washington state.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




Gee, I wonder what the difference was?


----------



## Huntn

Imrememb


SuperMatt said:


> I recall there was another person a while back who shot somebody at a protest and claimed self-defense. The police treated him a bit differently than they did Rittenhouse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suspect in killing of right-wing protester fatally shot during arrest
> 
> 
> Michael Reinoehl, who described himself as "100% ANTIFA," was killed as a federal task force attempted to apprehend him in Washington state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I wonder what the difference was?



I remember for Rittenhouse, don’t know if it was before or after the shootings some cops supposedly told him good job…


----------



## JayMysteri0

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I think it’s an interesting mindset that I don’t have.  If in a potentially dangerous situation I think my reflex reaction would be to get away from it, not bust out my phone and start filming it. I might also be a bit paranoid about this, but I think becoming an impromptu on the scene reporter might also make you a target. It seems like we’re starting to get to the point where filming something is no longer plays a part in defusing a situation, might even serve as an irritant to some true believer (in whatever) who is willing to be some kind of martyr to the cause.  But luckily there’s no shortage of other people who want to film anything and everything.  I even believe there are people hoping to catch something juicy with little empathy for the actual situation.  I suppose if it helps justice then the actual motivation for recording it doesn’t really matter.



I think it might be a mindset you don't feel you need.  For others as George Floyd's murder clearly showed, it's become a necessity.

Yes there's a danger, as the old thread elsewhere about the 'mask triggered' demonstrated.  Or even the video I shared last week of the 45 banner fan acting a fool in a public airport, but slapping the phone of another individual recording, suddenly claiming privacy concerns.  Hell, let's go big & remember a certain get together on Jan 6th that one party & people would have you believe was more tame the most peaceful BLM protest.  The days of when some people would regain their common sense faced with being recorded, passed with the rise of "Karen".  Now it's a necessary documenting tool, because those same people haven't only lost common sense, but shame as well.  They will deny anything happened and depend on the 'privilege' a court system that will often favor them, so video proof is a necessity.

It's a necessity.

Imagine a 'what if'.  'What if' there was video of the murder of Trayvon Martin?  What if there was video to go along with the dispatcher's plea to Zimmerman to let the police handle the situation he imagined, but he ignored & initiated the situation?  Would such video be enough to hammer home the unnecessary stupidity on Zimmerman's part to a jury?  Seeing someone run up on Black kid with no proof, a third party screaming to stop as they film it, then panic and fire.  Taking your scenario, perhaps Zimmerman shoots both people including the person filming, does that make Zimmerman look more sympathetic?  

Recording is unfortunately the only thing PoC are allowed to 'open carry', and NOT get "legally" shot on sight for.  ( _Yes, I am walking around cases like Isiah Brown & Stephon Clark where having a phone gets you shot, I think that's overkill in hammering how some people can't win no matter what_ ) Yet.  It's why there's an app developed after police stops & shooting Black motorists, that records video that is NOT stored on the phone but sent to the ACLU.  

These things are needed!  

That's the world some people are living in.  A mindset isn't an option for them.

You never know what situation is an Ahmaud Arbery or George Floyd, and what situation is someone acting like they hadn't heard masks were necessary in public places yet this year.


----------



## JayMysteri0

SuperMatt said:


> I recall there was another person a while back who shot somebody at a protest and claimed self-defense. The police treated him a bit differently than they did Rittenhouse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suspect in killing of right-wing protester fatally shot during arrest
> 
> 
> Michael Reinoehl, who described himself as "100% ANTIFA," was killed as a federal task force attempted to apprehend him in Washington state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I wonder what the difference was?



Yeah that was making the rounds, because after press investigations & the former president's own words, it seemed like one of the more glaring examples in recent times of an "extra judicial killing".  As you said, we saw who investigated, and who didn't.  Then again at the time we did have a UAG that also cobbled together his own "secret police" for Washington DC BLM protests.

Ah, good authoritarian times, that some "patriots" want to eagerly return to.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> Serious question: does anybody really watch these youtube commentaries? I absolutely hate everything about these. Write it down so I can read it 5x faster.
> BTW, WTF is "based"? It's like terms like gaslight or narcissist, SocMed Y-ers pick it them up and use them as catch-alls for everything.




I find his channel a good source for legal information for those of us not in the profession.  The video wasn’t a random suggestion on YouTube based on current events. I subscribe to his channel. He usually covers current cases if there are big ones in the media and a lot of people’s opinions are driven more by bias or passion than legal understanding.

In this case it seemed like a lot of outrage was driven by summary clickbait headlines either taken out of context or worded to be as clickbaity as possible. So I found it interesting to get more context in both this case and the judge‘s decisions compared to his history.  It also made me realize that if people felt differently about this case then they might agree with the judge’s decisions that attempted to make it less of a forgone verdict from the start.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I find his channel a good source for legal information for those of us not in the profession.  The video wasn’t a random suggestion on YouTube based on current events. I subscribe to his channel. He usually covers current cases if there are big ones in the media and a lot of people’s opinions are driven more by bias or passion than legal understanding.
> 
> In this case it seemed like a lot of outrage was driven by summary clickbait headlines either taken out of context or worded to be as clickbaity as possible. So I found it interesting to get more context in both this case and the judge‘s decisions compared to his history.  It also made me realize that if people felt differently about this case then they might agree with the judge’s decisions that attempted to make it less of a forgone verdict from the start.



Fair enough. Appreciate the response, as always.


----------



## SuperMatt

There is another ongoing case in Kenosha involving a teenager using a firearm for self-defense.









						Rittenhouse's defense renews focus on the case of a 17-year-old who killed her abuser
					

As a teenager in 2018, Chrystul Kizer shot and killed the man who sexually assaulted and trafficked her. Advocates say given the Rittenhouse verdict, a self-defense argument should work in her favor.




					www.npr.org
				




The judge in this case was much less kind to the defense. Surprised? Rittenhouse is allowed to claim self-defense despite provoking the situation. The judge denied this teenage girl that defense despite being sexually abused and trafficked by the person she fired on.

Her lawyers are having to appeal to the state Supreme Court simply to be able to argue an affirmative defense. Even if successful, the prosecutor could charge her with 2nd-degree homicide and put her in prison for decades.

There is *NOTHING* just about the justice system in Wisconsin, it appears.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I think it’s an interesting mindset that I don’t have.  If in a potentially dangerous situation I think my reflex reaction would be to get away from it, not bust out my phone and start filming it. I might also be a bit paranoid about this, but I think becoming an impromptu on the scene reporter might also make you a target. It seems like we’re starting to get to the point where filming something is no longer plays a part in defusing a situation, might even serve as an irritant to some true believer (in whatever) who is willing to be some kind of martyr to the cause.  But luckily there’s no shortage of other people who want to film anything and everything.  I even believe there are people hoping to catch something juicy with little empathy for the actual situation.  I suppose if it helps justice then the actual motivation for recording it doesn’t really matter.



Coincidentally  enough...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1464352751949955074/

When the police start a campaign asking you to NOT film, you realize the importance of filming.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> There is another ongoing case in Kenosha involving a teenager using a firearm for self-defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rittenhouse's defense renews focus on the case of a 17-year-old who killed her abuser
> 
> 
> As a teenager in 2018, Chrystul Kizer shot and killed the man who sexually assaulted and trafficked her. Advocates say given the Rittenhouse verdict, a self-defense argument should work in her favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The judge in this case was much less kind to the defense. Surprised? Rittenhouse is allowed to claim self-defense despite provoking the situation. The judge denied this teenage girl that defense despite being sexually abused and trafficked by the person she fired on.
> 
> Her lawyers are having to appeal to the state Supreme Court simply to be able to argue an affirmative defense. Even if successful, the prosecutor could charge her with 2nd-degree homicide and put her in prison for decades.
> 
> There is *NOTHING* just about the justice system in Wisconsin, it appears.



IIRC @yaxomoxay (adequately) brought her case up as a comparative example. There do seem to be two justice systems. 



JayMysteri0 said:


> Coincidentally  enough...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1464352751949955074/
> 
> When the police start a campaign asking you to NOT film, you realize the importance of filming.



Well, I think most of us will remember the initial statement below. This hollow police PR campaign probably aims to get rile up some civilians to go against civilians camming. This campaign could be adequate if it came with a concurrent push for body cams on al beat cops and serious penalties for those tampering with their body cams. Until then, keep calm and keep camming.


----------



## SuperMatt

Will we be having “legal” shootouts in our streets all the time now? According to this attorney, we might if we don’t change our laws.









						Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse, Travis McMichael and the Problem of ‘Self-Defense’
					

More guns, no matter in whose hands, will create more standoffs, more intimidation, more death justified in the eyes of the law.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## SuperMatt

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1462046392763965446/


----------



## JayMysteri0




----------



## SuperMatt

It’s official. Everybody responsible for the deaths in Kenosha gets a pass!









						Wisconsin man charged with buying assault-style rifle for Kyle Rittenhouse takes plea deal
					

The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse a rifle when he was only 17 has taken a plea deal to avoid a criminal conviction.




					abc7chicago.com
				






> On Friday, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger filed a proposed plea agreement. It suggested Black would plead no contest to a pair of citations, and pay a $2,000 fine, and the felony counts would be dismissed.



Seems like he’s getting off pretty easy, but he still has to pay $2,000 more than the person who actually killed 2 people with the gun.


----------



## Yoused

SuperMatt said:


> It’s official. Everybody responsible for the deaths in Kenosha gets a pass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wisconsin man charged with buying assault-style rifle for Kyle Rittenhouse takes plea deal
> 
> 
> The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse a rifle when he was only 17 has taken a plea deal to avoid a criminal conviction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abc7chicago.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like he’s getting off pretty easy, but he still has to pay $2,000 more than the person who actually killed 2 people with the gun.



Curiously, he bought the gun in Ladysmith, some 350 miles away by road from Kenosha. Not clear what the deal is with that.


----------



## JayMysteri0

I am so sure the jurors believed the boy was sincere when he broke down on the stand...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1504627665097089027/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1504638979265732608/

When you demonstrate that those tears you shed on command to get off for killing people, makes for good jokes...

I hear there's property elsewhere now that needs protecting, perhaps the kid could heed 'the call' again?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1504264782802784256/


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> I am so sure the jurors believed the boy was sincere when he broke down on the stand...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1504627665097089027/
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1504638979265732608/
> 
> When you demonstrate that those tears you shed on command to get off for killing people, makes for good jokes...
> 
> I hear there's property elsewhere now that needs protecting, perhaps the kid could heed 'the call' again?
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1504264782802784256/



Disgusting. But even at the jury selection phase, we saw the judge was going to make sure Killer Kenosha Kyle got off scot-free.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Just saw the story on Rittenhouse… what a tool. His parents and the GQP aren’t doing him any favors in life.

The ironic part? He’s proving Lebron James correct, and if he had a defamation case against him… well, he better hope he gets a judge like the one he had at trial.

That trial was such a joke, but it happens all the time. Judges across this country are sympathetic to young white men, even when the victims are young white girls who were sexually abused, or other young white men.

The verdict may have ended up the same regardless of the judge, but that goofy old sack certainly boosted Rittenhouse’s chances of acquittal.

Much like Zimmerman, this kid will probably dig himself into being a pariah.


----------



## Yoused

GermanSuplex said:


> The tweets aren’t working for me, what was the story?



Most likely they were deleted, either by the poster or cornfielded by the site.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Yoused said:


> Most likely they were deleted, either by the poster or cornfielded by the site.



That’s my guess, as it seems his disingenuous dumb f—kery blew up online.



> Kyle Rittenhouse Gas Meme of Him Crying at the Pump Viewed Over 1M Times
> 
> 
> The 19-year-old shared the "funny video" of edited footage of him crying during his murder trial on Twitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com


----------



## AG_PhamD

GermanSuplex said:


> Just saw the story on Rittenhouse… what a tool. His parents and the GQP aren’t doing him any favors in life.
> 
> The ironic part? He’s proving Lebron James correct, and if he had a defamation case against him… well, he better hope he gets a judge like the one he had at trial.
> 
> That trial was such a joke, but it happens all the time. Judges across this country are sympathetic to young white men, even when the victims are young white girls who were sexually abused, or other young white men.
> 
> The verdict may have ended up the same regardless of the judge, but that goofy old sack certainly boosted Rittenhouse’s chances of acquittal.
> 
> Much like Zimmerman, this kid will probably dig himself into being a pariah.




I’m of the opinion this is a very complex case. I believe on the one hand the evidence shows he was attacked, attempted to retreat, had nowhere to go, and legally defended himself- but that doesn’t mean he’s righteous. The fact he was where he was doing what he was doing that night is beyond ridiculous. He should have never been there. The fact his mother drove him there and endorsed this armed security guard LARPING is insane. In my mind the mother holds some liability for allowing her son into such a situation. I suppose the argument is then to what degree, if any KR is responsible based on his actions leading up. 

Then there is this conundrum where Rittenhouse shoots the guy who chases and attacks him- I think we can all agree he was not a stable individual. But ostensibly the subsequent attackers attacked Rittenhouse because they believed their lives were in danger. And such attacks prompted Rittenhouse to defend himself. I suppose the argument is that these attackers were in a position to retreat whereas KR was on the ground. But I also understand situational awareness for the average person is going to be roughly 0 in such an environment of chaos (against the already chaotic backdrop of a night full of protests and riots and people stampeding around). And all of this is happening in a blink of the eye. 

If I look at the big picture, there was no winner in this case. Everyone lost greatly- some more than others. Rittenhouse may have been acquitted but his life and how he relates to himself will never be the same. The cloud of that night and the trial will follow him forever. 

Regardless of what I feel about the circumstances, the prosecution did a pretty dismal job. But I have no desire to re-litigate this case. 

Regarding Rittenhouse’s Twitter posts… I suppose everyone handles trauma differently. I can only imagine the psychological torment of killing 3 people and going through a highly publicized murder trial, especially if you believe you did nothing wrong and nothing differently could have been done. I imagine you have to tell yourself that for your own mental preservation after killing 3 people due to a situation your willingly inserted yourself into dispute known dangers of what could happen. 

But regardless of how one copes with such a conflict, in this case evidently poorly conceived humor, you have to have some awareness of your audience and how they might interpret it as joking about killing 3 people. Even if he believes his lethal actions were justified, you still have to demonstrate respect. 

Working in the psych field, I’ve talked to a number of ex-military servicemen who have killed people. And in every single case they speak of the dead with a sense of respect and dignity because they understand the gravity of what it means to take a life, regardless of who they are and what they did. Even if they killed “the bad guy” they have enough insight to know most humans are not one-dimensional cartoon villains. 

If I were in Rittenhouse’s shoes, thank god I am not, I would get as far away from the spotlight as possible and move on in solitude, grateful for a second chance to live a life. I cannot fathom why he keeps inserting himself into the public eye and drawing negative attention to himself.


----------



## Eric

AG_PhamD said:


> I’m of the opinion this is a very complex case. I believe on the one hand the evidence shows he was attacked, attempted to retreat, had nowhere to go, and legally defended himself- but that doesn’t mean he’s righteous. The fact he was where he was doing what he was doing that night is beyond ridiculous. He should have never been there. The fact his mother drove him there and endorsed this armed security guard LARPING is insane. In my mind the mother holds some liability for allowing her son into such a situation. I suppose the argument is then to what degree, if any KR is responsible based on his actions leading up.
> 
> Then there is this conundrum where Rittenhouse shoots the guy who chases and attacks him- I think we can all agree he was not a stable individual. But ostensibly the subsequent attackers attacked Rittenhouse because they believed their lives were in danger. And such attacks prompted Rittenhouse to defend himself. I suppose the argument is that these attackers were in a position to retreat whereas KR was on the ground. But I also understand situational awareness for the average person is going to be roughly 0 in such an environment of chaos (against the already chaotic backdrop of a night full of protests and riots and people stampeding around). And all of this is happening in a blink of the eye.
> 
> If I look at the big picture, there was no winner in this case. Everyone lost greatly- some more than others. Rittenhouse may have been acquitted but his life and how he relates to himself will never be the same. The cloud of that night and the trial will follow him forever.
> 
> Regardless of what I feel about the circumstances, the prosecution did a pretty dismal job. But I have no desire to re-litigate this case.
> 
> Regarding Rittenhouse’s Twitter posts… I suppose everyone handles trauma differently. I can only imagine the psychological torment of killing 3 people and going through a highly publicized murder trial, especially if you believe you did nothing wrong and nothing differently could have been done. I imagine you have to tell yourself that for your own mental preservation after killing 3 people due to a situation your willingly inserted yourself into dispute known dangers of what could happen.
> 
> But regardless of how one copes with such a conflict, in this case evidently poorly conceived humor, you have to have some awareness of your audience and how they might interpret it as joking about killing 3 people. Even if he believes his lethal actions were justified, you still have to demonstrate respect.
> 
> Working in the psych field, I’ve talked to a number of ex-military servicemen who have killed people. And in every single case they speak of the dead with a sense of respect and dignity because they understand the gravity of what it means to take a life, regardless of who they are and what they did. Even if they killed “the bad guy” they have enough insight to know most humans are not one-dimensional cartoon villains.
> 
> If I were in Rittenhouse’s shoes, thank god I am not, I would get as far away from the spotlight as possible and move on in solitude, grateful for a second chance to live a life. I cannot fathom why he keeps inserting himself into the public eye and drawing negative attention to himself.



Or, the TLDR version:
You can confront anyone you want and start a fight, even in the most volatile of situations, then shoot the person you started the fight with when you start getting your ass kicked and claim self defense. Worked for Zimmerman and worked for this little crying weasel.

This "law" is wrong on every level.


----------



## Yoused

AG_PhamD said:


> If I were in Rittenhouse’s shoes, thank god I am not, I would get as far away from the spotlight as possible and move on in solitude, grateful for a second chance to live a life. I cannot fathom why he keeps inserting himself into the public eye and drawing negative attention to himself.



_The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about_
– Oscar Wilde​


----------



## Huntn

Eric said:


> Or, the TLDR version:
> You can confront anyone you want and start a fight, even in the most volatile of situations, then shoot the person you started the fight with when you start getting your ass kicked and claim self defense. Worked for Zimmerman and worked for this little crying weasel.
> 
> This "law" is wrong on every level.



@AG_PhamD this is the issue with everyone, 2 best friends at a bar are drunk and get into a fight, with fists they most likely live, with 1 or 2 guns, someone maybe both will die.  The absolute worst aspect is the _I feared for my life after I started a fight so I defended myself._

Both parties could claim this but it’s the guy with a gun who not only lives, but walks without legal consequence because the gun nuts on the jury scratch their chins and say “_oh, he was just defending himself after fearing for his life case closed” _while missing the forest for the trees as they caress their preciouses under their jackets.

The problem with these gun related laws is that instead of being penalized for bringing the gun, they are rewarded for bringing the gun. Therefore as I’ve been saying since the Wisconsin ruling, you’d better have a gun on you to get the benefit of the doubt or you’ll just be labeled a troublemaker who got what he deserved.


----------



## Huntn

Yoused said:


> _The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about_​– Oscar Wilde​



_There’s famous and then there’s infamous. _Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## GermanSuplex

My problem with the Rittenhouse case is that its an issue of the sum being greater than the parts. It's exemplary of the dichotomy in law enforcement and the justice system. If that had been a black kid who was suspected of gunning down three people - even in self-defense - he likely would have been shot dead on sight and the cops all let off entirely and back on the streets. A slap on the wrist would be a longshot. This kid was acquitted - with a sympathetic judge and half the country cheering him like a hero - and is free to profit off of his "experience".

I could give you a list a mile long of people who did far less who are rotting in prison or not even alive to tell their story, and literally the only difference between them and Rittenhouse is that some of them have darker skin.

In a vacuum, sure... I can see why Rittenhouse was acquitted. But as I've said before, all things being equal except the color of the defendant, it would be a much steeper uphill climb for a person of color to get acquitted. The state, judge and public perception would have been much more indifferent to the defendant if it wasn't a baby-faced white teenager. And I would tell you that there are many black people you could ask for yourselves, except many of them never lived long enough to make it to trial.

I'm not indifferent to the differences in state and county laws and exacerbating circumstances surrounding his case, but most of that stuff doesn't matter if the perp is black or hispanic. In essence, its guilty until proven innocent for some people, and for others its innocent until mountains are moved and the seas evaporate until guilty.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Everyone's favorite killed kid is back in the news, after embracing his role as far right fan fic hero.



> Kyle Rittenhouse is Lying About Going to College
> 
> 
> The Kenosha vigilante claims he's going to a school that says he's definitely not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theroot.com




Since his embrace at CPAC & former presidents, it seems he's learned the grift & victim game.



> Rittenhouse said last week on the podcast the Charlie Kirk Show that he was headed to Texas A&M University—major undecided—to study.
> 
> But the school says that statement didn’t give what it was supposed to gave.





> From USA Today
> The College Station-based school soon debunked his claim.
> 
> “He is not a student this summer and has not been admitted as a student this fall,” Texas A&M spokesperson Kelly Brown told USA TODAY.
> 
> The deadline to apply for the fall semester was in March.
> 
> Citing privacy issues, Brown did not verify whether Rittenhouse applied to the school.




So what happens you get your ass called out for making shit up pubicly?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1534126503847419905/

Adjust your story & play the victim.

Not a first



> NATION
> As controversy over his enrollment swirls, ASU says Kyle Rittenhouse is not currently a student​
> PHOENIX — Kyle Rittenhouse is not currently an Arizona State University student, the university confirmed Monday.
> The 18-year-old, who was recently acquitted by a Wisconsin jury of all charges in his shooting and killing of two men and wounding of a third in the aftermath of Kenosha protests, was taking online classes at ASU, he said during his testimony.
> In recent media interviews, he said he wants to study on campus at ASU.
> After Rittenhouse said on the witness stand on Nov. 10 that he was a college student at ASU, the university confirmed he enrolled as a non-degree-seeking online student for the session that started in mid-October, although he hadn't gone through the admissions process and wasn't enrolled in the nursing school. But according to the university, he’s not a student anymore.




People need to grasp, when you embrace that particular bit of celebrity, there comes a price.


----------



## Joe

He’s in the right place. College Station and A&M is conservative redneck heaven.


----------



## GermanSuplex

What’s his major, white grievance?


----------



## fooferdoggie

I am sure the conservative Christian colleges will accept him.


----------



## SuperMatt

A bit more from this young man, still playing the victim.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1533974284829224960/


----------



## Yoused

GermanSuplex said:


> What’s his major, white grievance?



Perhaps the comma should not be there. Or, as my cousin is fond of putting it, "_What is his major malfunction?_"


----------



## fooferdoggie

SuperMatt said:


> A bit more from this young man, still playing the victim.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1533974284829224960/



almost feel sorry for the little fuck.


----------



## GermanSuplex

fooferdoggie said:


> almost feel sorry for the little fuck.




Just lost my water reading that! Don’t know why it hit so funny, but it did!



SuperMatt said:


> A bit more from this young man, still playing the victim.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1533974284829224960/




Holy crap, even TFG be like


----------

