Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[ZiprHead]

Not guilty. Told ya!

So was O.J.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He would probably be competent enough to get gas masks and other comedic props but the AR15 might get in the way.

 

[Trausti]

As to KR pleading self-defense, I think that he acted threatening and provoked some people. It's as if he killed his parents and he then begged for mercy by saying that he is an orphan.

Opinion | Kenosha Tells Us More About Where the Right Is Headed Than the R.N.C. Did - The New York Times

The most revealing thing to happen in conservative politics this week did not involve the Republican National Convention, at least not directly. Instead, it took place in Kenosha, Wis., in the aftermath of a shooting on Tuesday night that killed two people and wounded a third.

Then about the complicated events around KR shooting those three people.

"To the conservative media, however, what happened in Kenosha was eminently justifiable and even cause for celebration."

What happened in Kenosha was a tragedy. Rittenhouse should not have been there, and we should agree — all of us — that the shooting should not have happened. We should also be troubled by police action, or the lack thereof, against armed militias. Tacit support from Kenosha police (at one point, an officer thanks the group for being there) almost certainly contributed to the permissive environment that led to the shooting. It is reminiscent, in that way, of the events in Charlottesville in 2017, where an official review found that law enforcement failed to “maintain order” and “protect public safety” leading to fights, skirmishes and the vehicular murder of a protester.

LOL. We should be troubled by militias trying to stop riots; but not concerned about police and authorities surrendering a city to be looted and burned by a mob of pedophiles and other assorted criminals.

 

[thebeave]

So, now not only is KR a free man, but soon to be a very rich man in the near future thanks to forthcoming defamation lawsuits against people (Hi Colin Kapernick!!) and news media who have labeled him a white supremecist, etc. Maybe he and Nicholas Sandmann will be yachting buddies. Good job, wokesters! You always seem to know just what to do!

 

[lpetrich]

LOL. We should be troubled by militias trying to stop riots; but not concerned about police and authorities surrendering a city to be looted and burned by a mob of pedophiles and other assorted criminals.

Mob of pedophiles???

 

[zorq]

Wait a minute here, why is this case so cleanly divided along political lines? Clearly multiple people are looking at the same evidence and arriving at different conclusions. That isn't surprising at all. But there seems to be a clean delineation based on only a single demographic factor. That is surprising (to me ) and disturbing.

Is the political lense that one or both sides look at reality through so distorting that we can't trust that the other side is seeing the same objective reality we think we are seeing?

I think the US is fucked.

 

[Generation55]

I think everyone is missing the important conundrum that needs to be solved. If you kill someone damaging property, it does sound dumb if you say, "I had to kill that person to protect a building! Protecting a building is more important than a human's life! They deserved to die for damaging buildings and property!" However, it also sounds dumb to say, "Just let them continue and do whatever they want. Who cares? It's just property."

I think everyone can agree that it does sound dumb to value buildings and property over human life. Most people would agree that human life is more important than the "life" of a building. But, what's the alternative? Let them do whatever they want? Imagine if everyone in a grocery store just decided to start looting and run out the door. Nobody could stop them. Is it right to let them continue? How would you stop them? It also sounds weird to say, "Just have the cops show up and start firing into the crowd! Hell yeah!!!"

What is the way out of this conundrum? We can't have a society if we just let people loot every store whenever they want with no repercussions. But, on the other hand it does sound bloodthirsty and savage to say, "Just start killing them all!!" But, what is the real alternative? How would someone protect their property? We can't have property rights if someone can just show up and steal your building or destroy it.

What do you guys think about this? I think everyone is missing this. Think about if a person broke into your house and you are standing there with a gun and the person is trying to steal your TV and he says to you, "You're not gonna kill me over a TV are you?" and you say, "I guess not" and then he moves to your bedroom and starts looking through jewelry and says to you again, "you're not gonna kill me over something as stupid as jewelry are you?" You respond, "I guess not. It's just a piece of meaningless property." This exchange happens over and over until the thief empties your whole house of everything and now you have nothing.

At what point does it become OK to kill to protect your property despite the fact that you may believe, "no one deserves to die for just taking property."

 

[bigfield]

I think everyone is missing the important conundrum that needs to be solved. If you kill someone damaging property, it does sound dumb if you say, "I had to kill that person to protect a building! Protecting a building is more important than a human's life! They deserved to die for damaging buildings and property!" However, it also sounds dumb to say, "Just let them continue and do whatever they want. Who cares? It's just property."

I think everyone can agree that it does sound dumb to value buildings and property over human life. Most people would agree that human life is more important than the "life" of a building. But, what's the alternative? Let them do whatever they want? Imagine if everyone in a grocery store just decided to start looting and run out the door. Nobody could stop them. Is it right to let them continue? How would you stop them? It also sounds weird to say, "Just have the cops show up and start firing into the crowd! Hell yeah!!!"

What is the way out of this conundrum? We can't have a society if we just let people loot every store whenever they want with no repercussions. But, on the other hand it does sound bloodthirsty and savage to say, "Just start killing them all!!" But, what is the real alternative? How would someone protect their property? We can't have property rights if someone can just show up and steal your building or destroy it.

What do you guys think about this? I think everyone is missing this. Think about if a person broke into your house and you are standing there with a gun and the person is trying to steal your TV and he says to you, "You're not gonna kill me over a TV are you?" and you say, "I guess not" and then he moves to your bedroom and starts looking through jewelry and says to you again, "you're not gonna kill me over something as stupid as jewelry are you?" You respond, "I guess not. It's just a piece of meaningless property." This exchange happens over and over until the thief empties your whole house of everything and now you have nothing.

At what point does it become OK to kill to protect your property despite the fact that you may believe, "no one deserves to die for just taking property."

No one deserves to die for just taking property.

 

[Generation55]

No one deserves to die for just taking property.

Then that means you have to let rioters and looters roam free and continue until they eventually stop on their own. How can we have a society this way? There really is nothing stopping anyone at every store in America to just start simultaneously looting everything with no repercussions. The next day there are no stores open in America.

Please show the flaw here.

What if you have 1,000 dollars on you someone steals it and is running away. It does sound silly to say, "I shot that man in the back because 1,000 was worth more to me than his life!" But, the only alternative would be to just let robbers get away with it. What is the solution if not being able to defend your property from thieves?

 

[bigfield]

Then that means you have to let rioters and looters roam free and continue until they eventually stop on their own. How can we have a society this way?

Jesus Christ. Police already know how to do riot control using non-lethal tactics. Even in the US.

There really is nothing stopping anyone at every store in America to just start simultaneously looting everything with no repercussions. The next day there are no stores open in America.

Right Wing Authoritarian fever dream.

What if you have 1,000 dollars on you someone steals it and is running away. It does sound silly to say, "I shot that man in the back because 1,000 was worth more to me than his life!" But, the only alternative would be to just let robbers get away with it. What is the solution if not being able to defend your property from thieves?

How about you brainstorm some ideas and see if you can come up with something better than cold-blooded murder.

 

[Generation55]

Then that means you have to let rioters and looters roam free and continue until they eventually stop on their own. How can we have a society this way?

Jesus Christ. Police already know how to do riot control using non-lethal tactics. Even in the US.

But, they weren't doing anything to stop the riots. They were letting the city burn. The politicians told the cops to not do anything. Why didn't they tell the cops to do non-lethal riot control? If all of a sudden your town's police department just disappeared and there were no more cops, wouldn't you logically assume that there will be some people who will start patrolling the streets? One can disagree and say that doing this would be stupid, but what is the alternative to having no police? It would be inevitable that armed groups will start patrolling, thus becoming the new police.

I think we can all agree that if a bunch of people in full MAGA gear: MAGA hat, MAGA shirt, MAGA sweat pants, MAGA shoes setting a city on fire and looting and a guy in a BLM shirt was walking around with an AK and got lunged at by a few MAGA people, I can only imagine all the jokes about how dumb those MAGA people were and how the BLM guy was trying to save a city from MAGA trash and people on the right would be screaming about why the BLM guy had an AK at a mostly peaceful protest full of Patriots.

While I can agree and understand that nobody deserves to die over property, there is no good outcome if we take this logic to its full conclusion. We would have to let thieves take whatever they want from us.

 

[bigfield]

But, they weren't doing anything to stop the riots. They were letting the city burn. The politicians told the cops to not do anything. Why didn't they tell the cops to do non-lethal riot control?

According to Wikipedia:
Day 1: Large trucks used to block streets, police used tear gas and rubber bullets.
Day 2: National Guard activated, rail service suspended, highway closed. Tear gas used again.
Day 3: Courthouse fenced off, police arrest looters. More national guardsmen deployed.

Seems like you're just flat out wrong on that one.

While I can agree and understand that nobody deserves to die over property, there is no good outcome if we take this logic to its full conclusion. We would have to let thieves take whatever they want from us.

What you're saying here is that you have two choices:
1. Execute thieves.
2. Do nothing to stop thieves.

 

[Generation55]

But, they weren't doing anything to stop the riots. They were letting the city burn. The politicians told the cops to not do anything. Why didn't they tell the cops to do non-lethal riot control?

According to Wikipedia:
Day 1: Large trucks used to block streets, police used tear gas and rubber bullets.
Day 2: National Guard activated, rail service suspended, highway closed. Tear gas used again.
Day 3: Courthouse fenced off, police arrest looters. More national guardsmen deployed.

Seems like you're just flat out wrong on that one.

While I can agree and understand that nobody deserves to die over property, there is no good outcome if we take this logic to its full conclusion. We would have to let thieves take whatever they want from us.

What you're saying here is that you have two choices:
1. Execute thieves.
2. Do nothing to stop thieves.

From your wiki link:
"Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers activated the Wisconsin National Guard to protect firefighters and critical infrastructure in Kenosha.[29] The ACLU of Wisconsin strongly opposed the move.[30]"

ACLU is civil liberties. Which civil liberties do you think they were protecting when they opposed the National Guard? Was the ACLU conceding to let the riot continue until it fizzles out on its own?

Do you agree with the National Guard being deployed?

 

[Swammerdami]

The jury probably followed the law and judge's instructions in reaching their verdict. Remember: In Amerika one need not be at risk of grievous injury to be entitled to kill in self-defense: One need only THINK one is at such risk. And hate-crazed teeny-bopper punks like KR think stupidly.

In fact, I suppose any hot-blooded murder could be claimed as self-defense, especially if the case appeals to the Proud Boys, QAnon, GOP or other hate-filled organizations whose supporters will donate to a legal defense fund. With a well-paid "dream team" of defense lawyers not only will any such murder be acquitted, but the murder is a profit-making opportunity. As a guest star on the Tucker Carlson comedy and elsewhere, KR will soon be a millionaire.

It's really a shame that the prosecution couldn't come up with one single charge, even a misdemeanor, that KR was certainly guilty of. Illegal possession by a minor seemed like it, but apparently illegal possession applies to gas-charged pistols with plastic pellets but NOT to assault rifles! Is anyone else as struck as I am to learn that nobody knew whether it was legal for a 17-year old to wander around with an assault rifle until the judge ruled on the matter at the end of this trial?

Still, it's hard to believe the DA couldn't come up with a single charge that had to stick. Disturbing the peace?

I don't have the heart to watch Fucker Carlson interview Kallow Kyle. It would be sweet to hear the dolt say "Even though I was acquitted, I did learn that it's not right for a cowardly teenybopper to carry a weapon into a demonstration like that." But I'm not betting on any such outcome.

 

[bigfield]

But, they weren't doing anything to stop the riots. They were letting the city burn. The politicians told the cops to not do anything. Why didn't they tell the cops to do non-lethal riot control?

According to Wikipedia:
Day 1: Large trucks used to block streets, police used tear gas and rubber bullets.
Day 2: National Guard activated, rail service suspended, highway closed. Tear gas used again.
Day 3: Courthouse fenced off, police arrest looters. More national guardsmen deployed.

Seems like you're just flat out wrong on that one.

While I can agree and understand that nobody deserves to die over property, there is no good outcome if we take this logic to its full conclusion. We would have to let thieves take whatever they want from us.

What you're saying here is that you have two choices:
1. Execute thieves.
2. Do nothing to stop thieves.

From your wiki link:
"Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers activated the Wisconsin National Guard to protect firefighters and critical infrastructure in Kenosha.[29] The ACLU of Wisconsin strongly opposed the move.[30]"

ACLU is civil liberties. Which civil liberties do you think they were protecting when they opposed the National Guard? Was the ACLU conceding to let the riot continue until it fizzles out on its own?

Do you agree with the National Guard being deployed?

Didn't take you long to give up on that "we have no choice but to murder people" argument.

 

[ZiprHead]

Then that means you have to let rioters and looters roam free and continue until they eventually stop on their own. How can we have a society this way?

Jesus Christ. Police already know how to do riot control using non-lethal tactics. Even in the US.

But, they weren't doing anything to stop the riots. They were letting the city burn. The politicians told the cops to not do anything. Why didn't they tell the cops to do non-lethal riot control? If all of a sudden your town's police department just disappeared and there were no more cops, wouldn't you logically assume that there will be some people who will start patrolling the streets? One can disagree and say that doing this would be stupid, but what is the alternative to having no police? It would be inevitable that armed groups will start patrolling, thus becoming the new police.

Citation for this bucket of spit?

In Kenosha, the police were driving the demonstrators towards the militias, on purpose.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's really a shame that the prosecution couldn't come up with one single charge, even a misdemeanor, that KR was certainly guilty of. Illegal possession by a minor seemed like it, but apparently illegal possession applies to gas-charged pistols with plastic pellets but NOT to assault rifles! Is anyone else as struck as I am to learn that nobody knew whether it was legal for a 17-year old to wander around with an assault rifle until the judge ruled on the matter at the end of this trial?

Apparently Kyle did because I saw him testify when asked by the prosecutor that he didn’t carry a handgun because it would have been illegal for him to do so.

Even if a handgun would have been more sensible to have it wouldn’t have been as “cool” or intimidating.

 

[SLD]

Wait a minute here, why is this case so cleanly divided along political lines? Clearly multiple people are looking at the same evidence and arriving at different conclusions. That isn't surprising at all. But there seems to be a clean delineation based on only a single demographic factor. That is surprising (to me ) and disturbing.

Is the political lense that one or both sides look at reality through so distorting that we can't trust that the other side is seeing the same objective reality we think we are seeing?

I think the US is fucked.

Now that’s the $64,563.13 question! I’m a proud progressive. Liberal as anyone on this board. I think our gun culture is nuts. I think people who open carry semi automatic rifles probably deserve to get blown away every now and then just for being stupid dumbfucks. They need to be heavily regulated at a minimum. I protested in a local BLM March. I think Ashli Babbit deserve to have her shit blown away and a lot of others on January 6. I think Ahmed Arbery was murdered by a racist fucktard.

but I’m also a civil rights lawyer. I have to look carefully at the law and the facts. And not what I want the law to be. This case, like virtually every other cases out there, boils down to a narrow set of factual and legal issues. And I am not in favor of changing the laws or the standards of proof just so I can get some little fucker Who was too stupid to know what he was getting into.

I hope he’ll at least learn a lesson, but with all these right wing fucktards, like Matt Gaetz, calling him a hero and praising him for shooting looters, I fear his head will be swollen. He can be redeemed. Finish his nursing degree and save lives, especially gun trauma victims, and become an anti gun nut. That would give him fitting purpose.

And the message of this case is nothing more than the prosecution failed to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt in this particular instance. Those claiming it has some larger political meaning, either on the left or right, are full of shit. They are the ones giving it meaning. They’re turning it into something it isn’t. The ones on the left saying this case means it’s open season on protesters are in fact giving ideas to right wing vigilantes who will believe them. people need to quit politicizing this case or it will become a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[lpetrich]

President Biden seems like a good loser.

Biden reacts to Rittenhouse verdict: 'The jury system works, and we have to abide by it' - CNNPolitics

In a statement later Friday afternoon, Biden acknowledged that the verdict in the trial "will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included." He said that everyone "must acknowledge that the jury has spoken."

In a statement released by the White House Friday afternoon, Biden said he "ran on a promise to bring Americans together, because I believe that what unites us is far greater than what divides us."

...
Biden also encouraged protesters to "express their views peacefully, consistent with the rule of law."

"Violence and destruction of property have no place in our democracy," the statement adds.

The President has also spoken with the Wisconsin governor this afternoon and "offered support and any assistance needed to ensure public safety."

Rep. Jerry Nadler:
Rep. Nadler on Twitter: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest." / Twitter

Kyle Rittenhouse verdict sends a chilling message to Wisconsin and the rest of the country | Editorial | madison.com

The disappointing verdict is sure to embolden militant people who seek to take the law into their own hands. It also could increase and complicate self-defense claims if more people carry — and use — firearms in the streets. That’s a scary prospect.

But further violence in response to the verdict won’t help anyone. Our civil society must remain calm — in Kenosha, in Madison and across the country.

Rittenhouse is no hero, as some of his defenders pretend. He behaved like a vigilante and didn’t deserve to walk free, given his recklessness. Yet the law, unfortunately, skews in favor of shooters who claim self-defense. That needs to change.

Rittenhouse, then 17, wasn’t making anyone safer by parading through crowds of angry people with a semiautomatic rifle strapped to his chest and, according to prosecutors, pointing it at people before the conflict escalated.

Also,

One of the men Rittenhouse killed (Rosenbaum) was acting odd and aggressive when Rittenhouse shot him. Another victim swung and hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard after Rosenbaum was shot. The third victim had a gun.

But Rittenhouse wasn’t an innocent bystander, and some of his victims assumed he was an active shooter who needed to be stopped, prosecutors said. Rittenhouse was engaging passersby with his abrupt and threatening behavior. Much of the case hinged on whether Rittenhouse had provoked the others. If carrying an AR-15 down a crowded street isn’t provocative, what is?

Rittenhouse even got off on a gun charge despite getting his weapon from a friend because he couldn’t legally purchase it. Blame the state Legislature, not the judge who dismissed the charge, for that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wait a minute here, why is this case so cleanly divided along political lines? Clearly multiple people are looking at the same evidence and arriving at different conclusions. That isn't surprising at all. But there seems to be a clean delineation based on only a single demographic factor. That is surprising (to me ) and disturbing.

Is the political lense that one or both sides look at reality through so distorting that we can't trust that the other side is seeing the same objective reality we think we are seeing?

I think the US is fucked.

Now that’s the $64,563.13 question! I’m a proud progressive. Liberal as anyone on this board. I think our gun culture is nuts. I think people who open carry semi automatic rifles probably deserve to get blown away every now and then just for being stupid dumbfucks. They need to be heavily regulated at a minimum. I protested in a local BLM March. I think Ashli Babbit deserve to have her shit blown away and a lot of others on January 6. I think Ahmed Arbery was murdered by a racist fucktard.

but I’m also a civil rights lawyer. I have to look carefully at the law and the facts. And not what I want the law to be. This case, like virtually every other cases out there, boils down to a narrow set of factual and legal issues. And I am not in favor of changing the laws or the standards of proof just so I can get some little fucker Who was too stupid to know what he was getting into.

I hope he’ll at least learn a lesson, but with all these right wing fucktards, like Matt Gaetz, calling him a hero and praising him for shooting looters, I fear his head will be swollen. He can be redeemed. Finish his nursing degree and save lives, especially gun trauma victims, and become an anti gun nut. That would give him fitting purpose.

And the message of this case is nothing more than the prosecution failed to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt in this particular instance. Those claiming it has some larger political meaning, either on the left or right, are full of shit. They are the ones giving it meaning. They’re turning it into something it isn’t. The ones on the left saying this case means it’s open season on protesters are in fact giving ideas to right wing vigilantes who will believe them. people need to quit politicizing this case or it will become a self fulfilling prophecy.

I agree with some of this.

A couple quibbles though. Is there any proof the people he shot were looters? And 2, what did you think of the judge's actions in the courtroom, including his phone ringing several times? I've heard at least two prominent legal minds say his actions should be investigated.