Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 29 05:22:23 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Wisconsin V Rittenhouse #2
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 10 17:15:13

the wanderer Wed Nov 10 16:03:31
just reviewing the zoomed video would make it clear whether there was any chance the "logarithms" (as attorney called them), were adding anything suspect to whatever prosecutor was trying to show

instead judge wants an expert of the zoom feature programming to come in & testify... ridiculous
Forwyn
Member Wed Nov 10 16:32:56
Why is that ridiculous?
Habebe
Member Wed Nov 10 16:43:02
In a legal trial the use of experts is common.

An average reasoable person wouldnt be able to explain a logarythim.
murder
Member Wed Nov 10 16:49:58

WTF are they looking for in the zoomed in video?


tumbleweed
the wanderer Wed Nov 10 17:06:23
"Why is that ridiculous? "

because lawyers use enlargements regularly, plus most file formats have compression that alters it already even without enlarging

------

"WTF are they looking for in the zoomed in video?"

i didn't catch the start of it... i -think- they just wanted to zoom in on the drone footage video
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 10 17:17:08
Murder/TW

From what I seen they wanted to see if he was holding his gun up or aimed down.

It wasnt able to be seen clearly with regular footage.
murder
Member
Wed Nov 10 17:17:48

For future reference, next time this kid is put on trial for murder, he needs to remember to put some irritant on his fingers so when he wipes his eyes they will tear up. That was some of the god awfulest dry crying I've ever seen.

nhill
Member
Wed Nov 10 17:22:41
I'm still cringing after seeing it hours later. Kid is a certified grade-A douchebag.
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 10 17:27:40
Also he is all but guaranteed a mistrial if hebis found guilty.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 10 19:11:34
mistrial is only before verdict (but defense did move for one, with prejudice so no retrial possible)


here's the asshole defense attorney:
http://twitter.com/therecount/status/1458547328739155969

'artificial intelligence 3D logarithms' (presumably means algorithms)... make it sound super complicated as if not everyone in the world has zoomed in on shit & understands the concept

imagine an expert coming in to explain how image zooming works... who would understand or benefit & how would it matter
Forwyn
Member
Wed Nov 10 20:15:54
Assurances against a lying and inept prosecutor that an errant pixel won't be peddled to the jury as a raised rifle would be fair.
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 10 20:18:03
Is Kyle a douchebag?

Yeah, probably.To me he comes off as a sheltered wannabe cop who was looking for shit and found shit.

I will say I fully get the notion of "These fuckers ain't trashing my neighborhood", so it was a clash of wannabe cop (andrew Zimmerman 2.0) clashing with a real riot/terrorist revolt in his neighborhood by a bunch of wannabe anarchist/pinkos.

Id argue the most wrong doing was done by the pedo.

He openly threatened and chased down kyle to start off, it all starts with that.

He even literally said "shoot me, nigger" or Nigga
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 10 20:24:56
Murder, I seen it live, it was so wierd. Not pleasant to watch.
nhill
Member
Wed Nov 10 20:45:06
The whole thing was a damn clown show. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes. The world is a better place with one less pedophile, in all probability. He probably was a victim himself as a child, so Rittendouche ended that cycle and I'm not mourning the loss.

The conservative idiots painting out Rittenhouse to be some sort of vigilante hero is my only issue here-- provided he walks free, as he should, legally speaking. Y'all are terrible at choosing your heroes.
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 10 21:23:44
"Y'all are terrible at choosing your heroes."

Yeah. He definitely gives off a George Zimmerman vibe.

Plus he was homeschooled, the downside to that IMHO is it can lead to living in a smaller bubble.
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 10 21:24:39
But I definitely want a downtwn Kenosha in the next black ops.

The drone video did it for me.
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 10 21:55:04
I think political heroes get chosen mostly by who is against them, right?

Floyd is almost as shitty of a hero as Rodney King.What made them political heroes was people with political interests seizing on them and sides get taken.

Plus in this case, I have to admit that was pretty good shooting for a 17 year old in a riot.

The last guy who had a gun to his head he just shot his arm and center mass for the other two.
nhill
Member
Thu Nov 11 00:22:51
Liberals don't get a pass, either. That's why I said "y'all are terrible at choosing your heroes". I was being inclusive. ;)

By y'all, I mean y'all idiots dumb enough to choose a side in these incessant distractions.
patom
Member
Thu Nov 11 04:59:34
Looks like the Judge is trying to set the kid lose. That will set the stage for the next round of riots that will allow National Security Vigilante groups to legally come in guns blazing.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 11 05:37:31
Does it really matter?

Wont the case be appealed to high courts either way?
Habebe
Member
Thu Nov 11 06:39:11
"That will set the stage for the next round of riots that will allow National Security Vigilante groups to legally come in guns blazing."



Brought to you live stream from Viacom.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 11 07:46:14
You would think rioters would learn to stand off and just shoot down armed and active shooters from a distance.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 11 09:57:53
Shooting fleeing people in the back who are shouting that they're going to the police is typically frowned upon.
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 11 10:01:25
"Tucker Carlson: ‘A Rapist Called Joseph Rosenbaum … Died As He Had Lived, Trying To Touch An Unwilling Minor’"

Based.

Personally I think Rosenbaum's background is a red herring, since being a scumbag shouldn't play any role in determining the guilt or innocence of the respective parties that night. But also, lol.
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 11 10:04:45
And as for Rittenhouse, the kid stepped up to defend that neighborhood from a possible riot.

Maybe he was young and dumb in going about it. But he also displayed a civic virtue that we should all be encouraging.

BLM domestic terrorism was/is disgusting, and anyone who was willing to clean up after their vandalism and defend city streets from being sacked should be applauded, not condemned.
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 11 10:06:01
Nhill of course doesn't care about the businesses that BLM ransacked during their summer of chaos, because all of his assets are in magic internet money.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 11 10:25:26
Ruggy
I think it is far more upstanding to take up arms to defend people against potential mass killing events with ARs.

Forwyn
I am pretty sure self-defense is fine against someone you think is an active shooter. For whatever reason you might think that.

Though the trick is probably just to shoot one of them. Shooting more than 1 leaves you vulnerable to all kinds of things.
nhill
Member
Thu Nov 11 10:27:55
http://thu...26cropY1%3D282%26cropY2%3D3414

Enjoy your crocodile tears! I admire the people that stepped up to defend the businesses, not the virtue-signaling vigilante douchebags that are looking for a piece of action.
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 11 11:16:58
"Mass killing events"

Aka anyone owning an AR 15. Lmao
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 11 11:19:39
Americans own something like 15 to 20 million ARs.

In jerguland, every single one of those is a "potential mass killing event."

Holy crap jergul.
obaminated
Member
Thu Nov 11 11:45:26
No jergul, it isn't self defense if you think someone is an active shooter simply because they are carrying a gun. That is called assault.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 11 12:54:05
Obam
Of course there needs to me more than merely carrying a gun. For example if other bystanders are saying active shooter. You need after all to have a reasonable grounds to think something bad is going down.

Its better of course if the active shooter has just shot someone. The important thing is to remember a gun is a ranged weapon, so no reason in particular to go close before taking down threat.

That to me it the lesson to be learned here. The problem is not so much Rittenhouse citing self-defence and more that the fellow with the gun did not make sure he was on trial for homicide claiming self defence instead.
murder
Member
Thu Nov 11 13:00:46

"Does it really matter? Wont the case be appealed to high courts either way?"

There's no appealing an acquittal.

murder
Member
Thu Nov 11 13:02:09

The judge had the jury and the entire courtroom applaud for Rittenhouse's defense witness.

This is 100% fuckery.

jergul
large member
Thu Nov 11 13:03:48
Yah, I checked afterwards. Though no doubt appeals will fly either way, it cant be based on acquital, but rather on something done wrong in court.
murder
Member
Thu Nov 11 13:30:54

http://twitter.com/NickAtNews/status/1458820790007308300

murder
Member
Thu Nov 11 13:32:33

http://twitter.com/NickAtNews/status/1458823895969112068

And he'll get away with it too.

Sam Adams
Member
Thu Nov 11 13:53:54
"The judge had the jury and the entire courtroom applaud for Rittenhouse's defense witness.

This is 100% fuckery."

Ya this judge sucks. Id feel worse about it if the evidence didnt point so strongly to acquittal.
Habebe
Member
Thu Nov 11 15:40:31
At the Kyle Rittenhouse trial this morning, the judge asked, given that it's Veterans Day, if there were any veterans in the room.

The only one appeared to be Rittenhouse's next witness, a use of force expert. So the judge asked everyone in the court to applaud for veterans. https://t.co/LmjAuu5Vzj

Uh, I mean who would have thought that witness was the sole Veteran on Armistice day.

IDK, on the fence.

I missed that part but this zooming guy on now is useless for the prosecution.

I mean I'm actually buying his argument that they shouldn't show the enlarged image.
kargen
Member
Thu Nov 11 15:54:44
"Though no doubt appeals will fly either way, it cant be based on acquital, but rather on something done wrong in court."

Anything he is acquitted on is done and could only be brought up in a civil suit. If he is found guilty of anything the defense can ask for an appeal.
There can be an investigation into conduct by defense or prosecution during the trial but that would have zero impact on the outcome of the trial other than determining an appeal for any guilty verdict.
If he is found not guilty on some and guilty on others there can be an appeal but that I think means the whole thing starts over so there is a chance of double jeopardy.

After it is done someone could say either the defense or prosecution was so fucked up or out of line they should be disbarred or something like that. Wouldn't make a difference to the case though only the career.
kargen
Member
Thu Nov 11 15:57:58
My brother was watching the trail again today so I listened while I ate lunch. They were going on about the enlarged image again. The judge finally made the right decision but it seemed like he was leaning the other way for most of it.

The defense attorney was being a disingenuous prick and the expert really didn't seem to be.
murder
Member
Thu Nov 11 16:02:14

This guy was a defense witness for Rittenhouse ...

http://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1458885098879676426

Habebe
Member
Thu Nov 11 16:08:43
I think the prosecution is just being terrible.

They didnt object.Their fault.

They bring a witness that literally said he doesn't know what colors would be added. The burden of proof is on the state.

Ive had luck have judges that follow the law ( my DUI).

Ive also had judges that abuse the law. My "unlawful usenof a vehicle"

I knew the asshole wouldnt show, he didn't, I argued hearsay (preliminart hearing)

That cunt told me they permit hearsay now. Later on I found out that it's only for test results that are all but certain.

I still got it reversed, but wow a judge that just allows hearsay all Willy nilly. She should beaten, raped, tarred and feathered.

I stand by that.
Habebe
Member
Thu Nov 11 16:20:15
After that a hook device like for gutting deer should be inserted into her rectum linked to a cable and keelhualed on a very barnacle encrusted ship until expiration.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Nov 11 17:21:27
"This guy was a defense witness for Rittenhouse ...

http://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1458885098879676426"

And?

Antifa rioter was a prosecution witness.
kargen
Member
Thu Nov 11 17:26:51
I've really only paid attention the last two days while eating lunch.
Why doesn't the defense want the video allowed?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Nov 11 21:23:48
because the prosecution wants to show it

a nuisance objection that worked
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Nov 11 21:49:19
"because the prosecution wants to show it"

http://lh3...HLH_y3y7DvhHvv1yAhOMmqF9gzdfzk
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 11 22:21:45
Lulz at the nonstop whining of crybabies
obaminated
Member
Thu Nov 11 23:35:56
This jury will only find him guilty if they are afraid of public/social backlash. "Victim" lied about having a gun to police, lied on the stand for never pointing his gun at Rittenhouse and only after being shown a photo of him clearly pointing a gun at Rittenhouse did he admit that it wasn't until he aimed at Rittenhouse was he shot. The kid was a dork trying to do the right thing. Like provide medical air, confirmed by witnesses and putting out arsonist fires, confirmed by witnesses only to be attacked by pathetic whites who support blm but also yelled "let's beat the shit out of this nigger".

But hey, champs and their unemployed white friends will come out in droves to burn down businesses. And tw and his ilk will find a way to play the orange man who has lived rent free in his head for half a decade.
obaminated
Member
Thu Nov 11 23:37:07
Champs=chimps. Google translate is... interesting.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 12 04:22:10
Obam
He will be found guilty of the two last shooting if he harmed any bystanders in the first one and is found guilty of endangerment. No self-defence claim stands if he has just committed a felony.

It still is the most dangerous aspect of the trial for him.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 12 04:24:15
So, no, they will not only find him guilty in fear of backlash. They may do so because they think he committed a felony, then went on to shoot people.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 04:41:27
Who wants to lock in some early trial outcomes?

Jergul, Is that your final answer?
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 04:44:33
I think if it's the opposite of jury nullification and they convict without him actually being guilty, the judge would dismiss the verdict.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 12 05:08:27
Habebe
Why do you insist on not reading what I write?

I think that IF he is found guilty of murder and attempted murder, THEN it will be because he was found guilty of felony endangerment first. A felony would void self defense in the two last serious charges.

Why is that hard to understand?
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 12 05:12:51
I would have held out on that if in the jury myself. It resolves killing spree cascading effects of shooting someone in self-defense.

Sure, you can shoot the first guy, but after that, you cannot use a justified fear people are out to get you because you just shot someone as the basis for claiming self defense.

Easy to remember too. If you shoot someone in a crowd situation, then you probably committed some sort of felony, so dont shoot anyone else.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 05:50:13
"Why do you insist on not reading what I write?"

Too many words from a commie can poison the mind.

Now as dor the reckless endangerment, I'm asking you to look into your crystal ball one we did with US vax rates and place your estimate down.Your saying IG I'm asking what you think will happen.

Now as I understand it the reckless endangerment charge holds the threshold that the state must prove he acted in "utter disregard" for human life.

Two instances are being charged.

1. When he shot rosenbaum because there was a reporter behind him.

2. When he fired shots near someone who had kicked him in the face but did not hit them.

Neithet seems reasonable that their was utter disregard.

Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 05:53:36
"Sure, you can shoot the first guy, but after that, you cannot use a justified fear people are out to get you because you just shot someone as the basis for claiming self defense."

I think you can.

If I attack you and you defend yourself and shoot me dead.

Then you are attacked by people who were under the impression you were a murderer.

That does not negate your right to self defense.

By US law.
Seb
Member
Fri Nov 12 05:56:28
Jergul:

Depends on what you treat as a single event though.

Lets say Alice shoots Bob, a member of a crowd who is posing a clear threat. That then makes Charlie decide to attack Alice too, in a way that makes Alice fear for her life... and so on and so forth.

Generally, I suspect what we want to happen is for Alice and the mob to hold and wait for the police to take control of the situation so we do not get into the situation where Bob kills Alice, then Dan kills Bob and so on and so forth.

Now Rittenhouse decided to leave the scene, supposedly to turn himself in to police custody.

Perhaps a better move, that would have avoided any subsequent killings, would have been to stay in position and summon, or get someone else to summon, the police to come to him.

Either way though, an underage kid bringing a gun to a protest that he expects to be a riot underscores why he shouldn't have been there in the first place. If he needs a gun to feel secure offering medical aid ; and he is not considered responsible enough to hold a gun; then he's actually not able to offer medical aid in a safe and legal manner, and by bringing a gun he is adding to the danger of the situation becoming a riot.

Seb
Member
Fri Nov 12 05:58:16
Habebe:

"That does not negate your right to self defense."

Which means, as an armed citizen, you can (and probably should) shoot a person who has shot someone else - irrespective of the reason - on sight.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 06:09:25
"Which means, as an armed citizen, you can (and probably should) shoot a person who has shot someone else - irrespective of the reason - on sight."

Thats really another issue.

But onlt if you truly beleive you are in imminent danger. And you take the risk as in this case of being shot or shot dead.

I think your reffering to gaige. Of so gaiges right to self defense wouldn't negate Kyle's.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 06:14:38
Fyi Rosenbaum was also just released from a mental Institute for a suicide attempt. He also was seen telling multiple people as well as Kyle to "shoot me".

Likley this staeted as a sort of death by cop soet of suicide.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 12 07:06:36
Habebe
If you shoot someone in self defense, but harm others physically or psycologically by putting them in danger, then you have committed a felony and cannot invoke self-defense for any shootings you do in the aftermath.

By US law.

This makes sense. It avoids situations were both parties can successfully claim self-defense, to its best to hit first and hardest.

You do get that anyone that had killed Rittenhouse would also be able to claim self-defense after the first shooting, right?

Re Rosenbaum. Well if he was obviously unwell, and unarmed, then it sort of undermines the self-defense argument.

jergul
large member
Fri Nov 12 07:09:43
A guy aggressive asking people to shoot him and nobody does except one guy undermines the argument that it was reasonable for Rittenhouse to shoot him.

If nobody else feared for their lives, then what makes Rittenhouse the special snowflake who can reasonable fear for his own?
Cherub Cow
Member
Fri Nov 12 07:30:48
(Thread 1: http://uto...hread=88831&time=1636585583994 )
[nhill]: "such a sad life you must lead."

Nah, my life is dope, and I do dope shit :p

[nhill]: "I say the same thing about Mark Zuckerberg, is that also induced?"

It's not a good sign. It's better to think through someone's own words and actions than to react to them with visceral violence which has been mediated.

[nhill]: "My facetious comment that you're having trouble parsing means this: the Rittenhouse kid is a tool and I wouldn't mind him going to prison."

Cool, so you meant exactly what I thought you meant and exactly what I said you meant. I had no trouble parsing your meaning at all. Perhaps you should re-read and understand why — having understood completely your meaning — I responded with fully informed language.

[nhill]: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Yes, a fine propaganda meme, and the people who attacked Rittenhouse did indeed play stupid games, and they did indeed win stupid prizes for it. If anyone played stupidly, or if we can emphasize who played the most stupid game and who won the most stupid prize, it was they.

The only "game" that Rittenhouse played, on the other hand, was standing up for his community — a virtuous game which in a time before Nietzschean slave morality's sway would mean that he was acting as a citizen, responsible for his actions and dedicated enough to his principles that he was willing to stand against a tide of rioters, arsonists, and looters. His "prize" was to survive deadly assaults against the odds and to be made a target of a mass-media propaganda and misinformation effort.

[nhill]: "If he does get convicted, it may be a travesty of justice, but, a fitting karmic punishment nonetheless."

May he prevail to get a better prize, as his "karma" would be prosperity to make up for his trauma and for the media's malicious assault of good deeds, which Rittenhouse obligingly defended.

[nhill]: "Crocodile tears."

"White crocodile tears" if you follow the MSNBC propaganda ("Kyle Rittenhouse’s white crocodile tears hold value in America"
http://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/kyle-rittenhouse-tears-murder-trial-rcna5239 ).

It's not enough for Rittenhouse to be traumatized; his trauma must be propagandized on a racialist framework as well, since the DNC's racialist strategy must not only demonstrate a lack of empathy but must also elicit visceral hate of Rittenhouse at the level of his very appearance: his face, his race. If people pay attention to his race rather than the micro-expressions of true emotion, then they will be primed for further manipulation. This is part of a larger tactic of getting people to focus on the wrong details (the red herrings) at a cost to the facts — making people less perceptive of robust predictors of behavior. It is the same racialist strategy which gets people to fail at handling police interactions correctly, perpetuating the negativity of those interactions in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

..
[obaminated]: ""Those BLM folk weren't happy to see him put out their fires which is why they came after him in the first place."
[murder]: "Maybe they just saw an asshole waving a rifle around and decided to disarm him before he could kill somebody."

There's that "active shooter" propaganda again.

No one has testified that they were trying to disarm Rittenhouse for public safety. There is, however, video evidence of people shouting and becoming physically confrontational specifically because their arson was extinguished.

..
[murder]: "If you see a moron waving a rifle around, just yell "shooter!" and drop him with a round to the chest."

(Not actual legal advice from murder; will likely result in consecutive life sentences)

..
[CC]: "Rittenhouse purchased and used the weapon in Wisconsin ... Any firearms charges will likely fall on Dominick Black, Rittenhouse's friend who purchased the firearm."
[murder]: "It's got to be one or the other. It can't be both."

That shows how little you know of the charges.

A minor may be allowed to legally receive a firearm from an adult on a temporary basis, but an adult may be breaking the law by producing that firearm for a minor, dependent on conditions of the transfer, ownership, duration, purchase, and consequences of the transfer. The minor may only face liability for the use of the weapon itself.

In Rittenhouse's trial, he has not been charged with illegally receiving the firearm — only with possession (which, as I've pointed out, will probably be dismissed per the statute's own wording on 17-year-olds with long guns).

Black, however, may face separate charges in his separate case. Since he is the legal, registered owner of the firearm, he may be partially responsible for what happened with the firearm due to Rittenhouse's possession of it. Black has also admitted to receiving the money to purchase the firearm from Rittenhouse for that express purpose, which would implicate Black at the federal level due to ATF firearms-purchase paperwork that *he* filled out — not Rittenhouse. Black admitted this under oath, and he also admitted that he has a deal with the prosecution to testify to this in exchange for reduced sentencing.

Now, if you were inferring that Rittenhouse might be charged *later* with the straw purchase (a separate charge than his current trial), then I'd agree. But it gets murky.

The prosecution revealed that Black purchased the firearm for Rittenhouse with the intent to keep it in *Black's* possession, which Black did. So there may not be a direct transfer of money for possession there (i.e., Rittenhouse gave Black the money, but the deal was for Black to retain the weapon — not Rittenhouse). In a straw purchase, the expectation is that the paying party gains possession from the purchaser, bypassing legal ownership. Rittenhouse may be able to argue (and Black's testimony even supports this) that he gifted the money to Black, and that they would fill out the legal paperwork for a legal transfer at a later date (when Rittenhouse turned 18) — a separate transfer which would not bypass the age restriction.

Also, in questioning Black, the defense reveals that the prosecution did not notify Black that the defense could offer Black deals of their own, despite the defense requesting a meeting, which contaminates the issue against the prosecution and gives the defense leverage to further insulate Rittenhouse and Black from future charges (i.e., the prosecution coerced Black's testimony).

TLDR: Regarding weapons charges, Black, an adult who had ownership and possession of the firearm before the night-of, remains most at risk for a transfer, and Rittenhouse, a minor at the time of a temporary possession, may face no weapons charges at all. Black faces his charges in January 2022. The judge has left the statute charges against Rittenhouse active likely so that the prosecution can have a bargaining chip, but he could also dismiss the lesser charges outright. We'll find out Monday, but that would still just be a misdemeanor.

..
[Rugian]: "Maybe he was young and dumb in going about it. But he also displayed a civic virtue that we should all be encouraging."

Exactly. I'd agree that from one frame he's just some young kid, I don't give him some kind of idol-worship credit, and I'm not exactly going to get life advice from him. My support is mainly from the facts being so obvious (clear-cut self-defense) but the response being so delusional. If Wisconsin had dropped the charges the following week, it would have been a total non-issue. That said, the U.S. needs better citizens right now. It can't just be unchecked rioters, and I would not fault Rittenhouse for showing up that day. Arsonists and rioters only own the ground that citizens concede. There has to be an "adult in the room", and in this case, it just happened to be a 17-year-old.

..
[jergul]: "I am pretty sure self-defense is fine against someone you think is an active shooter."

There's that propaganda again.
That propaganda not at all supported by the case facts.

..
Which raises another issue:
We know that if Rittenhouse is found guilty of major charges that people will blame the jury, but what Copium® will people take if Rittenhouse is found not guilty?

We've already seen the stage set:
- Judge's fault for having a fair courtroom. I mean, he wouldn't let the prosecution automatically call the dead criminals "victims"! Prosecution had to *establish* whether or not they were "victims" using *facts*! So biased.
- Racial: the white defendant tried in a mostly white state by a mostly white jury for shooting three white people. Sounds like white privilege, if you'll believe it.
- OMGs!! Does no one respect STATE LINES??!?!? The LINES of the STATES?!?! You're never allowed to cross those like in a car or anything, but he crossed them!! He crossed the STATE LINES!!! Nothing is sacred.
- The whole legal system is unfair, that's why Chauvin was convicted!! .. wait.. I mean..
- OMGs! Fascism somehow! Trump somehow!
- White **crocodile tears**!! LeBron, TYT, and MSNBC said so!! I can't read emotions because of the autism, so I'll trust them!!
- "[Facts and fact-finding court procedures are white supremacy, here's why]"
- The tribal memes said I had to be upset today.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 07:33:16
"If you shoot someone in self defense, but harm others physically or psycologically by putting them in danger, then you have committed a felony and cannot invoke self-defense for any shootings you do in the aftermath."

The state has the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that he acted with "utter disregard for life"

Also they need to put themselves in Kyles state of mind during the event(s) which is a different standard than just an average reasonable person.

"
Re Rosenbaum. Well if he was obviously unwell, and unarmed, then it sort of undermines the self-defense argument."

Why? He verbally threatened kyle and then pursued him. The pursuing while kyle fled is key.

A madman can still hurt you.It doesn't negate SD.

WI isnt even a stand your ground state.

Its of my opinion no reasonable person can think that the legal case against kyle is not self defense by US/WI law.

They charged him within 2 days, biting off more than they can chew.Thats why they are pushing to reduce the charges.

Plus the prosecutor is a shitty lawyer.He is outgunned.No pun intended.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 07:36:22
"A guy aggressive asking people to shoot him and nobody does except one guy undermines the argument that it was reasonable for Rittenhouse to shoot him.

If nobody else feared for their lives, then what makes Rittenhouse the special snowflake who can reasonable fear for his own?"

You forget this man is witnessed by like 3 witnesses and film threatening to kill kyle.He then chased him down as kyle fled.

*he then chased him down while kyle fled*

I cant stress that enough. Kyle didnt chase down rosenbaum.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 07:39:02
Cherub, The term crocodile tears is commonly used in non racial terms.

My mom used to say that and actually has cried crocodile tears at one of my trials.I won:)
Cherub Cow
Member
Fri Nov 12 07:44:07
[Habebe]: "Cherub, The term crocodile tears is commonly used in non racial terms."

Yes, that was my point. MSNBC didn't think it was enough to simply say, "crocodile tears," — they had to add "white" for racial emphasis, lest their useful idiots forget identity politics.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 08:00:07
Oh, yes.Gotchya.

MSNBC is on the verge of collapse.They are grasping at straws and getting mote absurd as ratings plummet and pundits quit.

But atleast they aren't Don Lemon.What with his 104 viewers.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 12 11:42:27
CC
The facts of this trial are not the facts of a different trial where someone claimed self-defense for killing Rittenhouse who they thought was an active shooter and a direct threat to them.


The oddity of this case is that regardless of outcome, anyone killing after the first victim can claim self-defense.

Resolved by finding Rittenhouse guilty of endangerment, and with that felony, removing self defense from the two other shootings.

I am not saying that will happen, I am merely saying it is a reasonable outcome that avoids cascading self-defense defenses for reasons given earlier.

habebe
I am just saying that when an unarmed crazy man tried to get others to kill him, they did not. It weakens the reasonable aspect of Rittenhouses claim.

You made that point, not me.
nhill
Member
Fri Nov 12 13:01:03
Lol, CC is talking outta both sides of their ass now.

> Cool, so you meant exactly what I thought you meant and exactly what I said you meant. I had no trouble parsing your meaning at all.

You're still having trouble understanding it. Look up the word facetious and get back to me.

> The only "game" that Rittenhouse played, on the other hand, was standing up for his community — a virtuous game which in a time before Nietzschean slave morality's sway would mean that he was acting as a citizen, responsible for his actions and dedicated enough to his principles that he was willing to stand against a tide of rioters, arsonists, and looters. His "prize" was to survive deadly assaults against the odds and to be made a target of a mass-media propaganda and misinformation effort.

Nice idol worshipping.

> I don't give him some kind of idol-worship credit, and I'm not exactly going to get life advice from him.

Oh wait, another inconsistency? Make up your mind.

----

I already said he should walk free from a justice standpoint. You are completely missing the point, as usual, and stubbornly adhering to your wrong interpretation.

----

The action of defending one's community is admirable if you are doing it to defend one's community.

Rittenfag is not admirable because he was doing it to virtue-signal and look for trouble. Before you go on your insane conspiracy propaganda shit, I've never watched any media coverage on this, and I don't watch media in general. I go straight to the source, so I watched the videos filmed on the streets referenced in the trial. Maybe watch them yourself instead of your dumbass Q commentary overlaying them.

He was the only one in his group that was acting like a self-centered righteous douchebag (kinda like you in this thread). Even people on his own side were pulling him back and trying to get him to stop being an idiot.

The other defenders weren't crying for attention and antagonizing the rioters. I admire them because they avoided that stupid game. Now he wins his stupid prize of going through this court process and risking potential jail time and civil lawsuits. Excuse me if I don't give a fuck. He deserves whatever comes his way. Afterwards, he'll grift the whole thing by selling "Free as Fuck" t-shirts, so don't feel too bad.
nhill
Member
Fri Nov 12 13:03:51
Be prepared for another long-winded explanation backpedalling and straw manning their way outta this wet paper bag. You know what the mark of intelligence is, CC? Concision. Stop making us read 2 pages of drivel and get to the point.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Nov 12 13:31:14
here's judge on the pinch/zoom issue:
http://twitter.com/Guinz/status/1459216913536634881
^a long story of how he screenshots text messages of his & emails to himself, and when it's long they are a tiny ribbon image & when he pinch/zooms in it's too blurry for him to read, thus feeling justified in his ruling

an idiotic comparison... i don't know the resolution of the video prosecutor wanted to show nor what detail he wanted to focus on & neither does the judge

but an expert testifying on how zooming is calculated isn't going to help... just do it & it'll be obvious if too blurry to judge anything
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Nov 12 13:38:32
...also, if any video of anything has ever been shown then it undoubtedly wasn't at the exact resolution of the recording and just 'fit to screen' or similar as that's the logical way to view
obaminated
Member
Fri Nov 12 13:42:12
Haha prosecutors admit a reasonable jury would acquit Rittenhouse. Rip jergul, tw, murder etc.
nhill
Member
Fri Nov 12 13:44:50
Lol, it's surprising to me that that was ever in question. Of course he should be acquitted. If it was one of the rioters shooting Rittenhouse, tw and murder would have defended him. Partisan blindness.

jergul gets a pass for commenting across the sea on another country and state's laws.
kargen
Member
Fri Nov 12 16:10:36
"If nobody else feared for their lives, then what makes Rittenhouse the special snowflake who can reasonable fear for his own?"

Ask why did Rittenhouse stand out to those that threatened him. He looked like a weak little kid. If you are going to pick on someone it will be a person you see as weak.
The guy tried to take Rittenhouse's gun because he thought that was his best chance to take a gun. I'm invoking tumbleweeds ability to read minds here but this is what makes sense as to why Rittenhouse of all people there was the one singled out.
"The facts of this trial are not the facts of a different trial where someone claimed self-defense for killing Rittenhouse who they thought was an active shooter and a direct threat to them."

Thought being a hell of a word here. Thought there was a direct threat then sure. Thing is there was no direct threat as Rittenhouse was running away.
Thought of active shooter is a huge problem. If you are not absolutely certain the person you are confronting is an active shooter then you have no cause to engage with force. None.
This case is exactly why you must know not think you know. Let's assume Rittenhouse was only defending himself in that first shooting and still felt threatened. Him running away makes sense. Even if you know he shot someone by overhearing him say he shot someone or by witnessing the shooting you still don't get to assume active shooter. Him running away should have been clear sign to all but a raging idiot that the incident was over.
The next two shot started a whole new incident because they had no fucking clue what was happening and engaged with Rittenhouse. As that event unfolded their best course of action would have been take note of all they could so they are reliable witnesses should there be a need.

Turns out the only thing (because the minor with weapon isn't going to stick) they had a slam dunk on the prosecutor forgot to address so it got tossed.
Rugian
Member
Fri Nov 12 16:57:53
Seb

I find it unbelievable that you think the problem was Rittenhouse, as opposed to the problem he was trying to address, the ENTIRE SEASON OF NATIONAL RIOTING.

Maybe Rittenhouse wouldn't have felt a need to be on that block if he, and the rest of us, hadn't spent months watching disorder in America's cities.

Or we could just blame the teenager with the gun, because guns are an absolute bad and BLM Marxists are an absolute good.
Seb
Member
Fri Nov 12 18:06:19
Rugian:

He contributed to the disorder, illegally carrying a firearm that he used to kill two and injured a third.

If you can call any protestor a rioter need that attended a protest where violence happened, or even if they just got caught up in it, will that applies to Rittenhouse too; irrespective of his intentions or affiliations.

But attending with a gun demonstrates he envisaged violence and the possibility of him doing violence to others.

So yeah, he's definitely part of the problem, not the solution.

What happens next, people attend protests with guns, looking for counter protestors and vigilantes to protect protestors from with lethal force.

This makes violence more likely, not less.

Seb
Member
Fri Nov 12 18:12:02
Reducing your entire political strategy to "how can I outrage and provoke my political opponents as much as possible... oh no riots! How unpredictable! Now we have the right to kill them in the streets, in the name of law and order and freedom"
Seb
Member
Fri Nov 12 18:13:11
And now, to peacefully protest the election by breaking into Congress, beating up the police, and disrupting the process of confirming the result of the election.
Seb
Member
Fri Nov 12 18:16:52
General lesson in civics - govern responsibly and be careful not to lose legitimacy, or you get the mob, violence in the street and civil war and you can cry into the dead letter that was your constitution or whatever about how unfair it was. These depend on the consent of the governed, not they other way around.

Many polities have gone down that way. Yours is not special.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 12 18:40:57
"If you are not absolutely certain the person you are confronting is an active shooter then you have no cause to engage with force. None."

Not how self-defense works. Or rather, anyone claiming self-defense at a trial will be absolutely certain they were confronting an active shooter.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 20:14:16
"habebe
I am just saying that when an unarmed crazy man tried to get others to kill him, they did not. It weakens the reasonable aspect of Rittenhouses claim.

You made that point, not me."

I would think to a negligible amount.

Objectively we can all agree that generally in these situations courts favor self defense claims from the person who tries to flee.

As a matter of fact in non stand your ground states I *beleive* you have a legal duty to attempt to flee.

Now personal feelings on the issue are different. The kid is probably a little douchey. Id say he comes off as a cop wannabe who likley enjoys the feeling of authority.

But again, that doesnt mean he broke the law.And again Id argue the notion of local defense of his neighborhood is an admirable trait.

Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 20:32:54
"Or rather, anyone claiming self-defense at a trial will be absolutely certain they were confronting an active shooter."

True story.

The down side with this for them is the biggest boon for Kyles case which is.


They closed the gap, pursuing Kyle, not the other Way around.

It hurts a self defense claim when you chase some one down, grab at their gun and physically attack them.

None of the 3 interactions were initiated by Kyle.

Rosenbaum had threatened to kill him twice and then chased him down while kyle tried to flee.He then grabbed at his gun allegedly, but again the burden ofnproof for that isnt on him.

Antony Huber ran up on Kyle while he was on the ground and swung a skateboard into his head after another man kicked him in the head and grabbed at his gun before he shot at him.

Gaige admitted on the stand that when Kyle shot his arm that Kyle was on the ground and Gaige was standing over him with a pistol aimed at his head.This is corroborated with visual evidence.

Seems open and shut.
kargen
Member
Fri Nov 12 20:49:43
"He contributed to the disorder, illegally carrying a firearm that he used to kill two and injured a third."

Except he wasn't illegally carrying.

"Not how self-defense works."

What the fuck does self defense have to do with the two people that chased Rittenhouse? They were never at risk of death nor bodily harm until they decided to attack Rittenhouse.
You attack someone and then in court say well some people told me he was a bad guy and that defense will not fly.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Nov 12 21:17:43
“whoever impersonates an emergency medical services practitioner, as defined in s. 256.01 (5), with intent to mislead others into believing that the person is actually an emergency medical services practitioner is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”
~ Wisconsin law. (& 256.01 specifically notes EMT)

he lied that he was a certified EMT... so he’s a criminal
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 21:44:46
^Did he? Was that even a charge?
Forwyn
Member
Fri Nov 12 22:02:12
"he lied that he was a certified EMT... so he’s a criminal"

And Gaige ran around in a medic hat but also drew a weapon after a false surrender - a fucking war crime lol.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 12 22:17:30
The reason that the people who kyle shot would have a difficult time arguing self defense..


In law, the duty to retreat, or requirement of safe retreat,[1]: 550  is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a threatened person cannot harm another in self-defense (especially lethal force) when it is possible to instead retreat to a place of safety.[1]: 549–554  This requirement contrasts with the right in some other jurisdictions to stand one's ground, meaning being allowed to defend one's self instead of retreating.

It is a specific component which sometimes appears in the criminal defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if criminal defendants are to prove that their conduct was justified.

"Duty to retreat"_Wiki

Its extremely rare that you can pursue someone while they flee and claim self defense.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 13 06:40:52
An active shooter in a crowd context would be one of those situations. Did you not whine about a rent a cop that dutied to retreat at some school shooting or another?
Habebe
Member
Sat Nov 13 07:49:56
An "active shooter" who only shoots when attacked and one who was fleeing towards the cops is a bad case.

jergul
large member
Sat Nov 13 08:43:46
habebe
The perception of the person claiming self-defense matters. The active shooter was "fleeing" through demonstrators.

The only moral of the story here is better safe than sorry. The guy with the gun in particular should just have shot Rittenhouse.

Checking out the see if a guy with an AR is a threat after a shooting is waay to dangerous.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 13 08:45:04
Needless to say, the Rittenhouse defense would have never played here. I am guessing a 12 year sentence in our hotel prisons. So 6 years served. 4 of those with access to university credits.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Nov 13 08:50:12
"The only moral of the story here is better safe than sorry."

And don't wait behind cars to ambush a kid coming to put out your dumpster fire, while your buddy helps you try to box him in and fires off a pistol shot in the air when he jukes away.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 13 08:50:21
In sum. You can't have it both ways. Great leeway works for anyone who has the perception they are acting in self-defense.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 13 08:51:35
Forwyn
Yah, just shoot him. Never approach a guy with an AR. He is way too much of a threat.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 13 08:53:07
Or what do you think people should do. Let roaming ARs walk around until they put themselves in a situation where they "feel" threatened?

Stupid games, stupid prizes.

How would any of the people Rittenhouse killed have been worse off if they had just taken him out instead?
Forwyn
Member
Sat Nov 13 08:55:21
Yes, open carry is not a crime. Rittenhouse displayed no acts of aggression throughout the night, unlike Rosenbaum, which was thoroughly covered over the course of the trial.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 13 08:59:18
Yes, it was actually a crime. Rittenhouse was carrying illegally. Taking out a threat when you feel threatened is also not a crime. An AR is inherently threatening. You do not need much more context than that and one killing already is way more context than you need.

Like I said, dont fuck around with an AR guy you think shot someone. Just take him out (and dont bring a skateboard to a gunfight under any circumstance).

That is the only lesson to be learned here...
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 13 09:01:56
Rosenbaum, the crazy guy that nobody but Rittenhouse thought needed to be killed? That Rosenbaum?

As already said, arguing that crazy guy had been crazy all evening with all kinds of people does not strengthen a self-defense claim.

Once shot, it turned Rittenhouse into an active shooter.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 13 09:04:59
An AR being inherently threatening is tied to its usage relying entirely on the perceptions and state of mind to the person holding it.

How far are you willing to trust that person to make the right calls? How far does your trust go right after he just shot someone?
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share