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.

 

[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.

I think this article addresses some parts of your question:

Kyle Rittenhouse and the New Era of Political Violence

What brought the teenager and so many others to the streets of Kenosha, Wis., equipped for war?

www.nytimes.com

 

[Rhea]

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?

This is such a naked dodge and weave.
1. Makes claim about politicians’ lack of action
2. Is shown that he is flat out wrong
3. Refuses to discuss new data and admit he was falsely accusing people and trying to stir up emotion with lies
4. Instead jumps to, “but what about the non-profits?”


Is that a deliberate tactic to stir up shit instead of discussing issues?

 

[Rhea]

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."

Do you really see the world this way, or are you just trying to say the most inflammatory thing possible?

There are scores of middle ground options. Including increased camera footage to identify looters and bring them to justice later. INcluding using police and national guard to observe and deter. Including better window covering structures. Including listening to the protesters who identify trouble makers in the crowd. Including many many more. But if all you want to talk aboout is wholesale looting versus murder, then I would choose wholesale looting.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Legally, that would require a trial to determine. Assuming they were looters without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves in court would be just as bad a assuming Rittenhouse was a murderer. Right? Unfortunately, two of them are no longer available to defend themselves in a court of law.

 

[lpetrich]

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "Republicans want people to “be armed and dangerous.” And we are still out here talking about “wokeness” (vid link)" / Twitter
Video: Madison Cawthorn going on record as offering KR an internship.

 

[southernhybrid]

I haven't read all of your posts, but I have read several articles that explained that the real problem is with our laws. It's too hard to prove that someone wasn't acting out of self defense in the US. Our gun laws, including the stand your ground laws etc. make it very difficult to prove that someone wasn't acting in self defense. Of course, imo, Rittenhouse also benefitted from White privilege, If you don't agree, ask yourself without if you honestly can see a young Black man holding a similar weapon, then killing 2 White men during a protest! Do you honestly think the verdict would be not guilty in such a case? I can't see it. I honestly can't.

I'm going to link one article that discusses the law. I'm not sure if I've used up my gift articles, but if I have some left, the article will be available for anyone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/rittenhouse-acquittal-self-defense.html

For many Americans, the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse on all charges on Friday was a vindication of an innocent, if not heroic, teenager with good intentions. For others, it was a brutal disappointment, further evidence that the courts give white men a pass for their actions.
But for legal scholars, it was not a surprise. Once Mr. Rittenhouse claimed that he had acted in self-defense when he shot three men, killing two, during unrest following the police shooting of a Black man in Kenosha, Wis., the onus was on the prosecution to prove otherwise.
“When people look at this, and they’re feeling frustrated, they’re not recognizing just how high the prosecutors’ burden is here,” said Cecelia Klingele, a University of Wisconsin law professor. “It was a real uphill battle to get out from under self-defense.”
The acquittal points to the wide berth the legal system gives to defendants who say they acted out of fear, even if others around them were also afraid.

 

[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?

This is such a naked dodge and weave.
1. Makes claim about politicians’ lack of action
2. Is shown that he is flat out wrong
3. Refuses to discuss new data and admit he was falsely accusing people and trying to stir up emotion with lies
4. Instead jumps to, “but what about the non-profits?”


Is that a deliberate tactic to stir up shit instead of discussing issues?

But Rittenhouse was allowed to carry that weapon. One of the people he shot also had a gun on him. Why did that person bring a gun to the protest, too? Rittenhouse also wasn't

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.

But Rittenhouse was allowed to carry that weapon. One of the people he shot also had a gun on him. Why did that person bring a gun to the protest, too?

Rittenhouse also wasn't a coward. How many people would have the guts to show up to a warzone like that and put themselves in harm's way to try and help people? That is the opposite of a coward. This would be like saying a firefighter is a coward for trying to help people out of a burning building and then yelling at the firefighter for shooting soemone in self-defense who tried to harm the fire fighter. People say, "he shouldn't have been there," but the rioters shouldn't have been there either. Why is that ignored?

He didn't kill anyone who didn't threaten him. When he was being chased down the street, he didn't turn around and fire. He just kept running away until people attacked him and then he shot. You could tell he had good gun training. He knew what he was doing. I don't know how anyone can watch that and say he was a coward.

When the Black Panthers were carrying assault rifles in the capitol, you guys said that was fine and OK. What would you guys think if someone attacked the Black Panthers and they shot someone claiming self-defense? Would you be condemning the Panthers or celebrating it? Is it worse to open carry on a street or at the Capitol building? What do you think?

 

[Metaphor]

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

I've seen this baseless claim repeated over, and over, and over. Specifically, that Rittenhouse was armed when he crossed state lines. (That he was 'looking for trouble', is, of course, something that could be said of everyone else at the protest, too).

Why do the people who believe Rittenhouse to be guilty repeat this claim? Do they not know any better? Or do they know and just don't care? The 'crossing state lines' really, really seems to be a point of fascination, as if driving 21 miles were somehow a big deal. None of the original charges against Rittenhouse have a 'crossing State lines with a weapon' basis.

 

[Generation55]

I haven't read all of your posts, but I have read several articles that explained that the real problem is with our laws. It's too hard to prove that someone wasn't acting out of self defense in the US. Our gun laws, including the stand your ground laws etc. make it very difficult to prove that someone wasn't acting in self defense. Of course, imo, Rittenhouse also benefitted from White privilege, If you don't agree, ask yourself without if you honestly can see a young Black man holding a similar weapon, then killing 2 White men during a protest! Do you honestly think the verdict would be not guilty in such a case? I can't see it. I honestly can't.

I'm going to link one article that discusses the law. I'm not sure if I've used up my gift articles, but if I have some left, the article will be available for anyone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/rittenhouse-acquittal-self-defense.html

For many Americans, the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse on all charges on Friday was a vindication of an innocent, if not heroic, teenager with good intentions. For others, it was a brutal disappointment, further evidence that the courts give white men a pass for their actions.
But for legal scholars, it was not a surprise. Once Mr. Rittenhouse claimed that he had acted in self-defense when he shot three men, killing two, during unrest following the police shooting of a Black man in Kenosha, Wis., the onus was on the prosecution to prove otherwise.
“When people look at this, and they’re feeling frustrated, they’re not recognizing just how high the prosecutors’ burden is here,” said Cecelia Klingele, a University of Wisconsin law professor. “It was a real uphill battle to get out from under self-defense.”
The acquittal points to the wide berth the legal system gives to defendants who say they acted out of fear, even if others around them were also afraid.

But it was clear self defense. You hear someone yell "Get that guy!" in the video and they start chasing him down the street. Rittenhouse is running away at this point, even though he has his rifle. He still didn't want to shoot despite the fact that he was being chased. Then, the people attacked him and he shot them. He then stood up and kept walking through tons of people and still didn't fire the weapon again as he was walking.

He then flagged down the cops and told them someone was injured over there. If those people never attacked him, they would still be alive. If you say that those people attacked Kyle because he had a rifle, why didn't anyone attack the BLM protestors who had rifles at their protests?

This is what I am getting out of this:

Right wingers: It's OK for white people to have rifles, but not black people.
Left wingers: It's OK for black people to have rifles, but not white people.
Why can't it be OK for both?

 

[lpetrich]

'I threw them out of the room several times': Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says he didn't approve of Tucker Carlson film crew

"I did not approve of that. I threw them out of the room several times," Mark Richards told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

He added: "I don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money and that was part of it so I think, I don't want to say an evil but a definite distraction was part of it. I didn't approve of it but I'm not always the boss."

And as to the claim that KR acted in self-defense, where does it end? What will *not* qualify as self-defense?

 

[Generation55]

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

I've seen this baseless claim repeated over, and over, and over. Specifically, that Rittenhouse was armed when he crossed state lines. (That he was 'looking for trouble', is, of course, something that could be said of everyone else at the protest, too).

Why do the people who believe Rittenhouse to be guilty repeat this claim? Do they not know any better? Or do they know and just don't care? The 'crossing state lines' really, really seems to be a point of fascination, as if driving 21 miles were somehow a big deal. None of the original charges against Rittenhouse have a 'crossing State lines with a weapon' basis.

I know people on this board probably hate Tucker Carlson, but he said, "These same people who are telling you that borders don't matter and we shouldn't build the wall and let everyone into our country are the same ones telling you that it's so terrible for someone to cross state borders and go to another state." Say what you will about the guy, but this one is spot on.

Even when Trump first saw the footage he said, "It looks like he's running away before being attacked and looks like it could be self-defense." Turns out Trump was right while the media crucified Trump for saying that and said he went there as a white supremacist just looking to kill. Say what you will about Trump, but he was right again, too.

De BNlasio tweeted out how the verdict wasn't good and how it's sad that Rittenhouse isn't in jail. Someone pointed out how New York has a shooting every day and he never comments on it and only comments on Rittenhouse. Gang violence is a big problem in this country that needs to be stopped. Republicans point this out all the time but the Democrats seem to ignore it and let the gangs continue and roam free.

This is something I don't understand, either. I'm not saying I'm a Republican, but at least they are trying to get people to acknowledge the problem and not ignore it. I will never understand why it's OK for some cities to have hundreds of murders due to gang violence with not so much as a peep from the Democrat leaders, but when someone like Rittenhouse kills in self0defense, all hell breaks loose and the Dems go crazy on Twitter condemning it. Why not do the same every time there's a gang shooting? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Generation55]

'I threw them out of the room several times': Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says he didn't approve of Tucker Carlson film crew

"I did not approve of that. I threw them out of the room several times," Mark Richards told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

He added: "I don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money and that was part of it so I think, I don't want to say an evil but a definite distraction was part of it. I didn't approve of it but I'm not always the boss."

And as to the claim that KR acted in self-defense, where does it end? What will *not* qualify as self-defense?

If the Black Panthers at the state Capitol had people run up to them and try to disarm their rifles, would you say it was self defense if the Panthers shot them or would you say, "They should've never had rifles at the Capitol. Just by having them they are threatening?"

If someone has a rifle and is standing on the street not doing anything and then people start running up to them to try to disarm them, are they wrong for trying to do that or are they right for doing that? You either think someone walking with a rifle but not pointing it at anyone is a threat or not.

What do you think?

 

[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.

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.

I didn’t mean to imply that they were looters, but that is what right wingers are implying and that therefore it was a good thing to shoot them. I disagree profoundly with such sentiments.

The judge was a bit pro defense, but not overtly so. Frankly I’d rather have judges be pro defense than pro prosecution! Prosecutors have enormous power. Most judges come from their ranks. The prosecution deliberately went against his commands and they could have had a mistrial for that. He didn’t dismiss the claims even though he said he couldn’t tell what the video showed. He still let the jury decide the case. They could’ve gone another way.

 

[Generation55]

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.

I didn’t mean to imply that they were looters, but that is what right wingers are implying and that therefore it was a good thing to shoot them. I disagree profoundly with such sentiments.

The judge was a bit pro defense, but not overtly so. Frankly I’d rather have judges be pro defense than pro prosecution! Prosecutors have enormous power. Most judges come from their ranks. The prosecution deliberately went against his commands and they could have had a mistrial for that. He didn’t dismiss the claims even though he said he couldn’t tell what the video showed. He still let the jury decide the case. They could’ve gone another way.

While I can't say I agree with shooting looters, something does need to be done about it. Remeber Broken Windows policing that cleaned up NY? They cracked down on small crime (not saying they shot people for small crime!) but they cracked down with harsher penalties on small crime such as jaywalking, graffiti, vandalism, breaking windows, property crime, etc. This lead to an an all time low in crime. Why? Because when people are deterred from committing small crimes, they are deterred from committing bigger crimes such as murder and theft.

Compare that to letting shoplifters go free in San Francisco and now you have groups of people going into stores and looting them and not being punished for it. When people know there is no punishment, they will try and get away with it. De Blasio moved away from Broken Windows policing and now the city is in ruins again back to 1970's level crime.

For all the jokes about Giuliani that go on in left0wing circles, he sure did know how to clean up the crime. Not saying he's a perfect sane man today, but to dismiss the great job he did as Mayor is stupid, IMO. Just look at the difference in crime during his term and now.

This is the discussion that seems to go on:
Person #1: A black man was killed in the city today.
Person #2: By who?
Person #1: Another black man.
Person #2: OH, whatever.
Person #1: A black man was killed in the city today.
Person #2: By who?
Person #1: A white guy.
Person #2: OUTRAGEOUS RACISM!! BLACK PEOPLE KEEP GETTING KILLED!!! THIS ISN'T OK!!!!!

You see why this doesn't make sense? I've even listened to rap songs where they rap about killing other black people (but tey obviously say the N word here) while they vilify cops for shooting black people in the same song! To me, that is outrageous and deserves an explanation for why it's OK for black people to kill other black people but it's not OK for any other race to kill black people. Logically, this needs to be explained. Now, people may say, "but white people kill hwhite people all the time!" Yes, this happens but thye don't write songs about how awesome they are for killing other whites. You don't hear them singing, "I'm a bad whitey killin' whitey daily! Whiteys need to be afraid of me!" like you hear in rap songs. Strange, right? Never got a good explanation for this.

 

[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.

I didn’t mean to imply that they were looters, but that is what right wingers are implying and that therefore it was a good thing to shoot them. I disagree profoundly with such sentiments.

The judge was a bit pro defense, but not overtly so. Frankly I’d rather have judges be pro defense than pro prosecution! Prosecutors have enormous power. Most judges come from their ranks. The prosecution deliberately went against his commands and they could have had a mistrial for that. He didn’t dismiss the claims even though he said he couldn’t tell what the video showed. He still let the jury decide the case. They could’ve gone another way.

Judges aren't supposed to be pro any side. They are just there to make sure the trial is fair.

 

[ZiprHead]

David Axelrod, former chief adviser to President Obama, took to Twitter on Monday to criticize the Wisconsin judge presiding in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, accusing him of being "a de facto defense attorney."

Axelrod slammed Judge Bruce Schroeder after the latter dismissed a misdemeanor gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager facing murder charges for fatally shooting two protesters during unrest over police brutality last year in Kenosha, Wis.

In his tweet, Axelrod praised Rittenhouse's luck and said that "this kid has the great good fortune of a de facto defense attorney on the bench."

Adding further criticism, Axelrod said that "In keeping with the Wisconsin state motto, the judge’s message to gun-toting vigilantes: Forward!"

This argument over Rittenhouse's rifle is based on whether the length of the weapon qualified it as dangerous under the Wisconsin state law.

Earlier, Schroeder had dismissed the defense's effort to get the charge thrown out, but then said on Monday that he believed the statute was poorly written. He added that he was open to challenging the count, which carries a maximum possible sentence of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

"I have big problems with this statute, I've made no bones about that from the beginning," the judge said.

But you waited until the last minute before dropping the charge, disallowing the defense to get an outside ruling on the law. If you had a problem with it from the beginning you should have had the law questioned in the beginning.

 

[thebeave]

David Axelrod, former chief adviser to President Obama, took to Twitter on Monday to criticize the Wisconsin judge presiding in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, accusing him of being "a de facto defense attorney."

Axelrod slammed Judge Bruce Schroeder after the latter dismissed a misdemeanor gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager facing murder charges for fatally shooting two protesters during unrest over police brutality last year in Kenosha, Wis.

In his tweet, Axelrod praised Rittenhouse's luck and said that "this kid has the great good fortune of a de facto defense attorney on the bench."

Adding further criticism, Axelrod said that "In keeping with the Wisconsin state motto, the judge’s message to gun-toting vigilantes: Forward!"

This argument over Rittenhouse's rifle is based on whether the length of the weapon qualified it as dangerous under the Wisconsin state law.

Earlier, Schroeder had dismissed the defense's effort to get the charge thrown out, but then said on Monday that he believed the statute was poorly written. He added that he was open to challenging the count, which carries a maximum possible sentence of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

"I have big problems with this statute, I've made no bones about that from the beginning," the judge said.

But you waited until the last minute before dropping the charge, disallowing the defense to get an outside ruling on the law. If you had a problem with it from the beginning you should have had the law questioned in the beginning.

Sounds like the judge was doing what he was supposed to:

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

To Kenosha-based defense attorney Michael Cicchini, the statute clearly requires a weapon to be short-barreled to apply, and the judge made the right call.

“There doesn’t seem to be much ambiguity here,” he said. “(The charge) should have been dismissed earlier.”

The current wording of the overarching law seems clear: “Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” A lead-in paragraph defines dangerous weapon as several things, including “any firearm, loaded or unloaded.”

The subsection that defense attorneys relied upon to seek dismissal reads: “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 ...” That section of law isn’t specific to minors, but rather forbids any person from having a short-barreled shotgun or rifle.

“We knew from the beginning, that if you read that statute correctly, he was legal in having that firearm,” Richards said Friday after Rittenhouse was cleared of the remaining charges.

 

[Ford]

I've spent a few weeks with my latest trainee at work. He's a young guy, but very smart. Before he worked for us, he was on track to be a success at Amazon corporate. Nice guy. Wears a hoodie. And yeah...he's black.

If he'd walked into that maelstrom of the protest in Kenosha with an AR-15 in his hands that day? He's probably be dead. If he was leaving the scene, walking towards cops with that rifle in hand after shooting three people? He'd definitely be dead. There might have been a trial, but he'd still be dead.

 

[Enigma]

This is the discussion that seems to go on:
Person #1: A black man was killed in the city today.
Person #2: By who?
Person #1: Another black man.
Person #2: OH, whatever.
Person #1: A black man was killed in the city today.
Person #2: By who?
Person #1: A white guy.
Person #2: OUTRAGEOUS RACISM!! BLACK PEOPLE KEEP GETTING KILLED!!! THIS ISN'T OK!!!!!

You see why this doesn't make sense? I've even listened to rap songs where they rap about killing other black people (but tey obviously say the N word here) while they vilify cops for shooting black people in the same song! To me, that is outrageous and deserves an explanation for why it's OK for black people to kill other black people but it's not OK for any other race to kill black people. Logically, this needs to be explained. Now, people may say, "but white people kill hwhite people all the time!" Yes, this happens but thye don't write songs about how awesome they are for killing other whites. You don't hear them singing, "I'm a bad whitey killin' whitey daily! Whiteys need to be afraid of me!" like you hear in rap songs. Strange, right? Never got a good explanation for this.

I believe it may be a cultural appropriation sort of thing.

Killing Black people and bragging about it through lyrics apparently has some roots in Black culture.
As such, it is wrong for white people to try to kill Black people because such white people try to claim credit for the idea of killing Black people, fail to respect the culture that generated such a practice, and are thus clearly doing it wrong.

It's essentially what happened to the US Pilot of the British sitcom "The IT Crowd".

 

[Trausti]

I haven't read all of your posts, but I have read several articles that explained that the real problem is with our laws. It's too hard to prove that someone wasn't acting out of self defense in the US. Our gun laws, including the stand your ground laws etc. make it very difficult to prove that someone wasn't acting in self defense. Of course, imo, Rittenhouse also benefitted from White privilege, If you don't agree, ask yourself without if you honestly can see a young Black man holding a similar weapon, then killing 2 White men during a protest! Do you honestly think the verdict would be not guilty in such a case? I can't see it. I honestly can't.

I'm going to link one article that discusses the law. I'm not sure if I've used up my gift articles, but if I have some left, the article will be available for anyone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/rittenhouse-acquittal-self-defense.html

For many Americans, the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse on all charges on Friday was a vindication of an innocent, if not heroic, teenager with good intentions. For others, it was a brutal disappointment, further evidence that the courts give white men a pass for their actions.
But for legal scholars, it was not a surprise. Once Mr. Rittenhouse claimed that he had acted in self-defense when he shot three men, killing two, during unrest following the police shooting of a Black man in Kenosha, Wis., the onus was on the prosecution to prove otherwise.
“When people look at this, and they’re feeling frustrated, they’re not recognizing just how high the prosecutors’ burden is here,” said Cecelia Klingele, a University of Wisconsin law professor. “It was a real uphill battle to get out from under self-defense.”
The acquittal points to the wide berth the legal system gives to defendants who say they acted out of fear, even if others around them were also afraid.

"White Privilege." FFS. The media is responsible for such ridiculous blood libel. It selectively amplifies and misreports cases to create racial animus. Don't fall for it.

Jury acquits Gifford man who claimed self-defense after girlfriend killed by sheriff's SWAT team in 2017 raid

St. Paul man who shot at MPD in self-defense acquitted of all charges by jury

Court records show 28-year-old Jaleel Stallings was acquitted on Wednesday of multiple charges, including two counts of attempted second-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault, second-degree riot and intentional discharge of a firearm that endangers safety.
Stallings claimed self-defense in court.

Black man acquitted of killing white man after race dispute

Spencer, 31, was accused of killing Christopher Williams, 32, in a confrontation outside the Pittston bar in July 2017 after another man refused to shake his hand because of Spencer’s race following a dispute over a game of pool. Spencer had testified that he fired in self-defense as a group of would-be attackers came at him outside.

Suspected Texas high school gunman released on bail — one day after teacher and students shot

Man acquitted in stabbing death of Enfield High School student

“How can a 16-year-old get stabbed to death, and people do nothing about it?” said Brady’s father, Thomas Brady III, after the verdict. “There’s no way to wrap my head around it.”
Thomas Brady also recalled that people stood over his son and did nothing to help him at the scene of the stabbing, which occurred in Hoover Lane around midnight on Sept. 9-10, 2018. But defense lawyer Christopher D. Parker said, “From the facts, it was clear that it was self-defense, and I’m glad the jury saw it that way.”

 

[Trausti]

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

I've seen this baseless claim repeated over, and over, and over. Specifically, that Rittenhouse was armed when he crossed state lines. (That he was 'looking for trouble', is, of course, something that could be said of everyone else at the protest, too).

Why do the people who believe Rittenhouse to be guilty repeat this claim? Do they not know any better? Or do they know and just don't care? The 'crossing state lines' really, really seems to be a point of fascination, as if driving 21 miles were somehow a big deal. None of the original charges against Rittenhouse have a 'crossing State lines with a weapon' basis.

Because the media intentionally lies in service of the narrative.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There seems to be a typo in the wording of the statute [on the website]. Figuring out what is going on and why there is an apparent contradiction isn't something covered in news media.

The section of law is about "dangerous weapons" like shotguns, rifles, shirukens. Possession by a 17 year old is declared to be a MISDEMEANOR.

Another subsection of this section is intended to make an exception of EVEN GREATER SEVERITY pointing to another statute where possession by a 17 year old of a shortened barrel is a FELONY.

So the intent is "hey this is a misdemeanor. Unless it's a short barrel, then look at felony statute instead."

Here is part of additional subsection:
"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."

There should be an extra negative in there, maybe something like this:
"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 NOT in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

 

[J842P]

'I threw them out of the room several times': Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says he didn't approve of Tucker Carlson film crew

"I did not approve of that. I threw them out of the room several times," Mark Richards told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

He added: "I don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money and that was part of it so I think, I don't want to say an evil but a definite distraction was part of it. I didn't approve of it but I'm not always the boss."

And as to the claim that KR acted in self-defense, where does it end? What will *not* qualify as self-defense?

Many things do not. But in Rittenhouse claim it was clear.

 

[laughing dog]

'I threw them out of the room several times': Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says he didn't approve of Tucker Carlson film crew

"I did not approve of that. I threw them out of the room several times," Mark Richards told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

He added: "I don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money and that was part of it so I think, I don't want to say an evil but a definite distraction was part of it. I didn't approve of it but I'm not always the boss."

And as to the claim that KR acted in self-defense, where does it end? What will *not* qualify as self-defense?

Many things do not. But in Rittenhouse claim it was clear.

It took the jury 3 days to see that "clear" claim.

 

[Generation55]

'I threw them out of the room several times': Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says he didn't approve of Tucker Carlson film crew

"I did not approve of that. I threw them out of the room several times," Mark Richards told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

He added: "I don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money and that was part of it so I think, I don't want to say an evil but a definite distraction was part of it. I didn't approve of it but I'm not always the boss."

And as to the claim that KR acted in self-defense, where does it end? What will *not* qualify as self-defense?

Many things do not. But in Rittenhouse claim it was clear.

It took the jury 3 days to see that "clear" claim.

It was clear. Look at my post #1,027 that went unrefuted.

 

[Trausti]

I've spent a few weeks with my latest trainee at work. He's a young guy, but very smart. Before he worked for us, he was on track to be a success at Amazon corporate. Nice guy. Wears a hoodie. And yeah...he's black.

If he'd walked into that maelstrom of the protest in Kenosha with an AR-15 in his hands that day? He's probably be dead. If he was leaving the scene, walking towards cops with that rifle in hand after shooting three people? He'd definitely be dead. There might have been a trial, but he'd still be dead.

 

[lpetrich]

The judge was clearly sympathetic to KR. It's something like the trial of Adolf Hitler for the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, where the judges allowed him to rant at length about how he was a simple German patriot who wanted to restore Germany's former greatness, and how the real traitors were the Weimar leaders and those who stabbed their nation in the back by surrendering to the Western allies.

Ilhan Omar tweets support of Amber Ruffin clip slamming 'f----- up' Rittenhouse jury | Fox News

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "In case you needed a reminder…(vid link)" / Twitter
Amber Ruffin on her show:

In the video echoed by Omar, Ruffin said, "It's not okay for a man to grab a rifle, travel across state lines, and shoot three people and then walk free."

Ruffin accused the U.S. judicial system of being "blatantly and obviously stacked against people of color" and said it is "not okay for there to be an entirely different set of rules for White people."

"I don't care about Kyle Rittenhouse, I don't care about that racist judge. And I don't care how f----- up that jury must be," Ruffin added. "White people have been getting away with murder since time began."

Addressing people of color, Ruffin said: "You matter so much, that the second you start to get a sense that you do, a man will grab a gun he shouldn't have in the first place and travel all the way to another state just to quiet you."

 

[Generation55]

The judge was clearly sympathetic to KR. It's something like the trial of Adolf Hitler for the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, where the judges allowed him to rant at length about how he was a simple German patriot who wanted to restore Germany's former greatness, and how the real traitors were the Weimar leaders and those who stabbed their nation in the back by surrendering to the Western allies.

Ilhan Omar tweets support of Amber Ruffin clip slamming 'f----- up' Rittenhouse jury | Fox News

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "In case you needed a reminder…(vid link)" / Twitter
Amber Ruffin on her show:

In the video echoed by Omar, Ruffin said, "It's not okay for a man to grab a rifle, travel across state lines, and shoot three people and then walk free."

Ruffin accused the U.S. judicial system of being "blatantly and obviously stacked against people of color" and said it is "not okay for there to be an entirely different set of rules for White people."

"I don't care about Kyle Rittenhouse, I don't care about that racist judge. And I don't care how f----- up that jury must be," Ruffin added. "White people have been getting away with murder since time began."

Addressing people of color, Ruffin said: "You matter so much, that the second you start to get a sense that you do, a man will grab a gun he shouldn't have in the first place and travel all the way to another state just to quiet you."

But it's been established that he did NOT cross state lines and that he killed in self-defense. Even if it was proven that he did cross state lines, that's already been refuted by the fact that a lot of you claim that borders shouldn't be protected in the first place with your stance on the southern border. You can't claim to want to do nothing at the border and build no wall and let everyone in and then clutch your pearls at someone who crosses into another state of a country he's already a citizen of. That doesn't work against the big boys with big intellect.

I don't like all the flip-flopping that goes on.

The line of "he shouldn't of been there" is refuted by the fact that the rioters should've never been there, either. The people he shot in self-defense actually traveled farther to come to Kenosha than Kyle did. Kyle willingly ran into a warzone screaming, "MEDICAL?!?!" and started putting out fires and then got chased and attacked by people who started the fires and he killed them in self-defense and people are saying that he's a bad guy and a coward. If that's a coward, I don't want to know what you consider to be brave.

And then to top it all off, Kyle was crying on the stand a bunch of people were making fun of him for crying and calling him a baby despite the fact that many of those same people claim that we shouldn't shame men for crying, yet they were the first ones shaming him for crying. It really is pure madness!

We need to seriously start teaching critical thinking skills in schools. A lot of people seem to run on pure emotion.

 

[southernhybrid]

I found another good article that explains the problem that we have in the US regarding guns and how easy it has become to use self defense as an a reason to justify killing. It should be available to anyone to read for the next two weeks. It makes some interesting points and compares how people from both sides interpret the Rittenhouse verdict.


https://wapo.st/3cAvuso

On the streets through the night after the verdict, the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse played out as one more battle in a long-running war for the nation’s identity: With marches, signs and chants, one side shouted against racists and the gun-obsessed, while the other yelled back that the teenager who shot three people — two of them to death — on a hairy night in Kenosha, Wis., was a hero who had stood up for gun rights and law and order.

On TV, politicians, celebrity lawyers and pundits bickered over the impulsive acts of a young man: Could this country afford to define itself as a place where any earnest, naive or troubled soul in any public place gets to decide in an instant to deploy fatal force against another — possibly without consequences?
But in America’s courts, law schools and state legislatures, a quieter yet still fitful struggle has waged over the past couple of decades, focused on the central dilemma raised anew by the Rittenhouse verdict: What does a right to self-defense really mean? When can Americans choose to use deadly force? Who gets to decide?

There is a lot more in the article to think about, regardless of how one interprets the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial. One of my concerns is that some of the right are trying to make this messed up young man a hero. Will that inspire other immature men to take similar actions?

 

[marc]

I found another good article that explains the problem that we have in the US regarding guns and how easy it has become to use self defense as an a reason to justify killing.

This old clip made a good summary of the problem with Stand Your Ground/Self defense claimse

Spoiler: youtube

From the first season of South Park