• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $778. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

Think about all the minors who have been convicted of weapons possession over the years in Wisconsin. All the case law as well. Do their convictions get overturned? Lawsuits by thousands? For some reason, the statute even with a typo in a different subsection was always understood and used as intended prior to this court case.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
I think one other way of looking at this case is that Wisconsin Law is laughably useless. 17 year old person white boy can barely drive a car, but can walk in an active riot while open carrying a semi-automatic weapon... legally.

Then add to that, both parties involved in the subsequent shootings apparently have legitimate self-defense claims, the shot/dead trying to subdue an active shooter... and the active shooter trying to protect himself from people actively attacking him.

How fucking useless can legal code be to provide such ridiculous laws?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
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?
I'm sure there will be now that the justice system made it clear that minors can walk around carrying AR-15s and vigilantism is A-OK.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
If you wish to make this claim, I am sure you will be more than willing to look up the convictions they got, and see if there are any correlations between which charges were dropped and what the defendants looked like. I'll bet it'll "look about white."
 
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
My points are in response to your and others' articles and "explanations." In a previous post, I show what the typo is in a different subsection of the statute. Did you even read that? Your explanations do not make much sense since the law is known and used. Kyle Rittenhouse knew it was illegal for him to have a gun which is why he had his friend buy it instead. These charges have been made many, many times by law enforcement against minors with dangerous weapons. I used a sparse digitized newspaper database to find some charges but particularly for rifles and shotguns with normal sized barrels. Minors often get privacy and so following court cases is not always an option in a sparse, digitized newspaper database. It is a silly argument to claim that absolutely no one knew about this loophole for decades because the intent of the law has been clear. It is further silly to argue that maybe other defense attorneys in other cases used this argument in court because if they did, then the statute typo would have been fixed decades ago. Conservatives are also arguing that this subsection isn't a typo at all but is there for hunting purposes by 17 year olds, but that is a made-up fantasy as you can see from charges but also because the other statute isn't for hunting but for FELONY charges. As explained earlier, the statute is for misdemeanor possession, but makes an exception for short-barreled rifles/shotguns in a different statute because that is a felony. The felony exception isn't reasonably used to make the misdemeanor subsection disappear. Furthermore, conservatives are now claiming this judge's decision can't be used as a legal precedent. How the heck could that make any sense at all? Either it's a statutory problem that suddenly came into being after hundreds of teens arrested, some pleading guilty, some convicted, or it isn't a statutory problem.

I realize this will be complicated for you. Let's put it this way. I can be open-minded to civil rights issues--including ambiguous statutes because civilians deserve to have their laws recorded properly. While I think it is unreasonable to believe that Rittenhouse thought it was legal for him to have a gun, in the interest of civil rights procedures, I am willing to say okay, fine charge dropped, but then YOU have to deal with the logical consequences of that. That's what this is about. The logical consequences are that all these other people get to sue the state of Wisconsin for wrongful conviction and get their convictions overturned. How are you going to deal with these logical consequences?
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
If you wish to make this claim, I am sure you will be more than willing to look up the convictions they got, and see if there are any correlations between which charges were dropped and what the defendants looked like. I'll bet it'll "look about white."
No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2
 
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
If you wish to make this claim, I am sure you will be more than willing to look up the convictions they got, and see if there are any correlations between which charges were dropped and what the defendants looked like. I'll bet it'll "look about white."
No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2
It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?
 

Trausti

Contributor
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
If you wish to make this claim, I am sure you will be more than willing to look up the convictions they got, and see if there are any correlations between which charges were dropped and what the defendants looked like. I'll bet it'll "look about white."
No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2
It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?

The article cited by thebeave explains the issue fine. Essentially, the WI legislature did not foresee/consider the AR-15 when it made changes to the law through 2011 to allow minors to use hunting rifles. That will probably change.
 
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
If you wish to make this claim, I am sure you will be more than willing to look up the convictions they got, and see if there are any correlations between which charges were dropped and what the defendants looked like. I'll bet it'll "look about white."
No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2
It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?

The article cited by thebeave explains the issue fine. Essentially, the WI legislature did not foresee/consider the AR-15 when it made changes to the law through 2011 to allow minors to use hunting rifles. That will probably change.
I have already explained that the hunting reference is a red herring and apologetics. The hunting statutes are a different statute than the felony exception. The felony exception is the one that the defense is pointing to, even if there are references later on in the subsection to these other statutes involving hunting. Mentioning hunting is a way to obfuscate the issue. So, again, the exception is a felony exception, like it's a misdemeanor for possession unless the weapon is even worse, then it's a felony.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
If you wish to make this claim, I am sure you will be more than willing to look up the convictions they got, and see if there are any correlations between which charges were dropped and what the defendants looked like. I'll bet it'll "look about white."
No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2
Then wipe your ass with your claims before we flush them.
 

Trausti

Contributor
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
If you wish to make this claim, I am sure you will be more than willing to look up the convictions they got, and see if there are any correlations between which charges were dropped and what the defendants looked like. I'll bet it'll "look about white."
No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2
It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?

The article cited by thebeave explains the issue fine. Essentially, the WI legislature did not foresee/consider the AR-15 when it made changes to the law through 2011 to allow minors to use hunting rifles. That will probably change.
I have already explained that the hunting reference is a red herring and apologetics. The hunting statutes are a different statute than the felony exception. The felony exception is the one that the defense is pointing to, even if there are references later on in the subsection to these other statutes involving hunting. Mentioning hunting is a way to obfuscate the issue. So, again, the exception is a felony exception, like it's a misdemeanor for possession unless the weapon is even worse, then it's a felony.

??? The misdemeanor statute for minors states that it only applies for rifles if this other statute is violated. That other statute excluded long rifles. It’s not a hard analysis.
 

bleubird

Veteran Member
I have to ask: Is this the society that you want to live in? Violence solves all problems.Gun are needed for everyday life,Free speech trumps common sence. Rights have limits for a good reason. I have guns.I like them as machines.But,I have never needed one to defend myself.I have a 357 under my desk. Point is this the country you want to live in or do you wish for something better.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
I have to ask: Is this the society that you want to live in? Violence solves all problems.Gun are needed for everyday life,Free speech trumps common sence. Rights have limits for a good reason. I have guns.I like them as machines.But,I have never needed one to defend myself.I have a 357 under my desk. Point is this the country you want to live in or do you wish for something better.
I only ask that hunting laws apply to actual hunting.
 
View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.
Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.
If you wish to make this claim, I am sure you will be more than willing to look up the convictions they got, and see if there are any correlations between which charges were dropped and what the defendants looked like. I'll bet it'll "look about white."
No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2
It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?

The article cited by thebeave explains the issue fine. Essentially, the WI legislature did not foresee/consider the AR-15 when it made changes to the law through 2011 to allow minors to use hunting rifles. That will probably change.
I have already explained that the hunting reference is a red herring and apologetics. The hunting statutes are a different statute than the felony exception. The felony exception is the one that the defense is pointing to, even if there are references later on in the subsection to these other statutes involving hunting. Mentioning hunting is a way to obfuscate the issue. So, again, the exception is a felony exception, like it's a misdemeanor for possession unless the weapon is even worse, then it's a felony.

??? The misdemeanor statute for minors states that it only applies for rifles if this other statute is violated.

That is a contradictory interpretation of the intent because a violation of the referenced statute is a felony. A violation of the referencing statute is only a misdemeanor. Your interpretation of the intent is saying essentially: "this misdemeanor only applies if it is also a felony."
 
Last edited:

lpetrich

Contributor
Fox's Tucker Carlson gets exclusive access to Kyle Rittenhouse and his defense team during trial - CNN
Fox's biggest star, Tucker Carlson, secured exclusive access to Rittenhouse and members of his defense team during the trial. The arrangement was not revealed until after the not-guilty verdict was handed down on Friday.

Carlson shared a promo video on Friday night that showed his crew filming with Rittenhouse during the trial, featuring the 18-year-old in a wholly sympathetic light.

...
Fox announced that Carlson "will conduct an exclusive interview" with Rittenhouse, with a portion airing on Monday night, "followed by a Tucker Carlson Originals documentary on Fox Nation in December."

So the behind-the-scenes footage is for the documentary, and this entire tragedy is being used to drive subscriptions for Fox's streaming service.

...
Fox's coverage on Friday afternoon was one long performance of pro-gun ballads and anti-media broadsides. "MEDIA CONTINUES TO SMEAR RITTENHOUSE AFTER VERDICT," said a banner on "The Five." Co-host Jesse Watters claimed "that the media hates trials because they can't control trials. The media can control pretty much whatever they want in this country, but a trial is insulated."

...
Later in the day, Laura Ingraham talked with Donald Trump on the phone about the verdict. Trump had already issued a statement celebrating the result. "This is a young man that should not have been prosecuted," Trump told Ingraham while lambasting the prosecutors. "I thought the judge could have ended the case early, frankly," Trump added.
Will Fox News offer KR an internship? Tucker Carlson? Laura Ingraham? Sean Hannity?
 

J842P

Veteran Member
'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."
:lol:

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.
So what? It was still clear regardless of how long the jury took.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
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."
No, this is pure, unmitigated bullshit. The judge showed no bias. And comparing it to Hitler is just deranged. What is wrong with you?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
'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."
:lol:

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.
So what? It was still clear regardless of how long the jury took.
Obviously it was not clear to the jury if it took 3 days. Duh.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Obviously it was not clear to the jury if it took 3 days. Duh.
Given the murkiness of the events and motivation and evidence and laws, 3 days seems rather quick.

Had the jury reached a verdict in an afternoon, I'd assume that they had already decided before deliberations started. Not good.
Tom
 

Metaphor

Contributor
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.
So, BLM protesters would kill black people at their protest?

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.
I'm curious. Given the differential in treatment you are asserting between the way the public and/or police treat armed white men versus armed black men, what do you think the correct equality is? I assume you mean police acted completely correctly by not shooting Rittenhouse dead, and that they should have the same reaction to any black suspect.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
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.
So, BLM protesters would kill black people at their protest?

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.
I'm curious. Given the differential in treatment you are asserting between the way the public and/or police treat armed white men versus armed black men, what do you think the correct equality is? I assume you mean police acted completely correctly by not shooting Rittenhouse dead, and that they should have the same reaction to any black suspect.
Considering hunting regulations in all gun possession charges would be nice. ;)
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Fox's Tucker Carlson gets exclusive access to Kyle Rittenhouse and his defense team during trial - CNN
Fox's biggest star, Tucker Carlson, secured exclusive access to Rittenhouse and members of his defense team during the trial. The arrangement was not revealed until after the not-guilty verdict was handed down on Friday.

Carlson shared a promo video on Friday night that showed his crew filming with Rittenhouse during the trial, featuring the 18-year-old in a wholly sympathetic light.

...
Fox announced that Carlson "will conduct an exclusive interview" with Rittenhouse, with a portion airing on Monday night, "followed by a Tucker Carlson Originals documentary on Fox Nation in December."

So the behind-the-scenes footage is for the documentary, and this entire tragedy is being used to drive subscriptions for Fox's streaming service.

...
Fox's coverage on Friday afternoon was one long performance of pro-gun ballads and anti-media broadsides. "MEDIA CONTINUES TO SMEAR RITTENHOUSE AFTER VERDICT," said a banner on "The Five." Co-host Jesse Watters claimed "that the media hates trials because they can't control trials. The media can control pretty much whatever they want in this country, but a trial is insulated."

...
Later in the day, Laura Ingraham talked with Donald Trump on the phone about the verdict. Trump had already issued a statement celebrating the result. "This is a young man that should not have been prosecuted," Trump told Ingraham while lambasting the prosecutors. "I thought the judge could have ended the case early, frankly," Trump added.
Will Fox News offer KR an internship? Tucker Carlson? Laura Ingraham? Sean Hannity?
Of all the things that I find distasteful about this incident, this I think will leave the worst repercussions. Legal defenses now having private, undisclosed corporate sponsorship. Simply to provide top tier murder porn entertainment.
 

Derec

Contributor
We have a new mental disease: Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome.

Yes, Jerry Nadler and Pete Buttigieg are definitely suffering from it, but poor Cori Bush seems to have gotten it the worst.
Rep. Cori Bush calls for expulsion of House Republicans who offered Kyle Rittenhouse an internship, says her job feels 'more and more dangerous' every day

Hey Cori, if you think your job with all the security and Capitol police etc. is "dangerous" you can always resign or at least not seek reelection.

Before the verdict, she tweeted this gem.

Even if this is not pure fiction and somebody fired a shot, how does she know who they were if they were hiding?
And of course, Michael Brown wasn't "murdered" either.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
As long as any delusional person (such as KR) cleaves to the delusion and refuses to walk out of it, it is easy for them to paint everyone else as the bad guy rather than asking "am I really one of the good guys?"

Of course, that question is really painful. Because the answer may be "no..."

And then it's sleepless nights until you either figure out how to be a better person or quit trying and then eventually end up rejected by society for whatever reason you already know is coming.

I suppose much of that IS avoidable, except the inevitable social rejection.
 
Get help.

It is really Jerry Nadler, Lebron James, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar et al who need to get help.
Your claims sounds an awful lot like claims about Trump Derangement Syndrome made by conservatives who scream about critical race theory, masks as sex toys, and vaccines with 5G magnets, but I was making a joke. You wrote "we" in "we have a new mental disease." Making me explain a joke makes it unfunny. Next time, just go with it.
 

Derec

Contributor
Making me explain a joke makes it unfunny. Next time, just go with it.
Deliberately misunderstanding somebody's point does not a joke make.

But to get back to those who are actually showing symptoms of RDS, do you really think Cori Bush's job would be "dangerous" if Kyle came to work in the House as an intern?
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz fucked around and found out just how dangerous the game they were hunting that night can be.
Very true. What does that have to do with hunting laws applying to situations where hunting is not involved though?
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
I have to ask: Is this the society that you want to live in? Violence solves all problems.Gun are needed for everyday life,Free speech trumps common sence. Rights have limits for a good reason. I have guns.I like them as machines.But,I have never needed one to defend myself.I have a 357 under my desk. Point is this the country you want to live in or do you wish for something better.
Being in Australia we do not get much detail about these sort of cases sometimes but looking at what is now available I am astounded by the seeming inanities of your legal system. The young fellow could wander around with the guns seemingly unopposed as could other people.
You have too many fools with guns who should not have them and you seem to like waving guns in each others faces and then are mystified by why so many people get shot.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
I must say too that the prosecution did itself no favours. Having a defence witness (Grosskreutz) admit that he waved his gun in Rittenhouse's direction was not going to make it easy to claim an unprovoked shooting. You have people everywhere waving guns around when they manifestly should not be doing so.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Rittenhouse from the moment Rosenbaum advanced towards him had a good self-defense case that domino'd into anyone else that became (or appeared to be) a threat. The Jury made the right call. Bad situation for all of them. I bet top dollar given the chance every last one of them (including Kyle) would rather have done something else.
 

Ford

Contributor
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.
So, BLM protesters would kill black people at their protest?

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.
I'm curious. Given the differential in treatment you are asserting between the way the public and/or police treat armed white men versus armed black men, what do you think the correct equality is? I assume you mean police acted completely correctly by not shooting Rittenhouse dead, and that they should have the same reaction to any black suspect.
Wow. You can't be this dense, can you?

The entire BLM movement sprang out of ongoing frustration that unarmed black men (and a few women, too) were shot dead by cops. One famous case, a young black man was shot in the back as he walked away. One man calmly informed the police officer that he had a registered firearm in his car, and didn't reach for it, but was gunned down in front of his girlfriend moments later. "Hands up, don't shoot" works sometimes, but for some reason works less for black men. Then of course, sometimes the cops don't even need a gun much less a reason. I mean, why waste taxpayer bullets when a knee will suffice, right?

As for my dude, he'd likely be pretty safe from his fellow BLM protestors. He'd have about a nanosecond to put his hands up and/or drop to his knees before a cop shot him, though. The beloved Kyle? The cops didn't even stop him from leaving.

Your last sentence is...shall we say...worded in a very interesting way. Rittenhouse is just...Rittenhouse. Armed black man? Well that's what you call a "suspect."

That's the problem right there. Armed white man walking away from a shooting? Hey, that's just Kyle! Armed black man? Automatic suspect. Black man walking around a gated community wearing a hoodie? Suspect. Black man in a car with a broken tail light? Suspect. Black man with his hands in the air after cops draw their guns and demand he put up his hands? Suspect. You noticing a pattern here?

Probably not.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
I can envision an event that could spur the passage of more reasonable laws.

If a thousand or so “Antifa” show up at the next Nazi rally carrying AKs and ARs, bait the Nazis into acting in a manner that they all find threatening and proceed to mow down a few thousand Trumpsuckers in “self defense”, we will have such laws under discussion the very next day.

A small price to pay for setting society straight…
 
I only ask that hunting laws apply to actual hunting.

Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz fucked around and found out just how dangerous the game they were hunting that night can be.
Rosenbaum is a turd, but Huber and Grosskreuz were not hunting. They both perceived an active shooter scenario. Claiming they were hunting is an extremist political statement of the type of Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome kind of statements. If you want to be taken seriously by rational people (probably not your goal), you could try to make sane, rational statements instead.
 

Derec

Contributor
Rosenbaum is a turd, but Huber and Grosskreuz were not hunting.
Ritt was running away at that point. He was knocked down to the ground, then Huber hit him in the head with his skateboard. GG then pulled a gun on him. How would you call it?

They both perceived an active shooter scenario. Claiming they were hunting is an extremist political statement
It was definitely not what is usually described as "active shooter scenario". Their victim was retreating and going toward police. There was no reason for them to attack him.

of the type of Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome kind of statements.
You misunderstand what "X derangement syndrome" means.
 
Rosenbaum is a turd, but Huber and Grosskreuz were not hunting.
Ritt was running away at that point. He was knocked down to the ground, then Huber hit him in the head with his skateboard. GG then pulled a gun on him. How would you call it?

That is subduing him. Grosskreuz had a lot of opportunity to shoot him, but did not. Don't pretend he was hunting him.

They both perceived an active shooter scenario. Claiming they were hunting is an extremist political statement
It was definitely not what is usually described as "active shooter scenario". Their victim was retreating and going toward police. There was no reason for them to attack him.

Sure there was a potential reason to incapacitate him and take the dangerous weapon. Grosskreutz didn't even do that ultimately. Your extremist claims about them hunting are ridiculous and obviously meant to be opposite of claims of Rittenhouse hunting, simply a symmetric reflection of Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome.

of the type of Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome kind of statements.
You misunderstand what "X derangement syndrome" means.
I do not misunderstand at all. You are simply unaware how obvious your being political is to everyone in the forum.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
I have to ask: Is this the society that you want to live in? Violence solves all problems.Gun are needed for everyday life,Free speech trumps common sence. Rights have limits for a good reason. I have guns.I like them as machines.But,I have never needed one to defend myself.I have a 357 under my desk. Point is this the country you want to live in or do you wish for something better.
Being in Australia we do not get much detail about these sort of cases sometimes but looking at what is now available I am astounded by the seeming inanities of your legal system. The young fellow could wander around with the guns seemingly unopposed as could other people.
You have too many fools with guns who should not have them and you seem to like waving guns in each others faces and then are mystified by why so many people get shot.
And we have a lots of people defending the actions of those fools. There is no mystification about why so many people are shot - it is obvious to just about everyone. However, there are plenty of people who think the right to wave a gun around or that killing someone just because you are "scared" or that property might be damaged trumps commons sense.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
I must say too that the prosecution did itself no favours. Having a defence witness (Grosskreutz) admit that he waved his gun in Rittenhouse's direction was not going to make it easy to claim an unprovoked shooting.
While it was not a good performance by the prosecution, it seems to me that the jury hearing truthful statements is surely what we want from the justice system.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
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.
So, BLM protesters would kill black people at their protest?

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.
I'm curious. Given the differential in treatment you are asserting between the way the public and/or police treat armed white men versus armed black men, what do you think the correct equality is? I assume you mean police acted completely correctly by not shooting Rittenhouse dead, and that they should have the same reaction to any black suspect.
Wow. You can't be this dense, can you?
I don't believe I am dense, but I do believe that people sometimes post things with complete oblivion as to how somebody who does not already agree with them might understand it.

The entire BLM movement sprang out of ongoing frustration that unarmed black men (and a few women, too) were shot dead by cops. One famous case, a young black man was shot in the back as he walked away. One man calmly informed the police officer that he had a registered firearm in his car, and didn't reach for it, but was gunned down in front of his girlfriend moments later. "Hands up, don't shoot" works sometimes, but for some reason works less for black men. Then of course, sometimes the cops don't even need a gun much less a reason. I mean, why waste taxpayer bullets when a knee will suffice, right?

As for my dude, he'd likely be pretty safe from his fellow BLM protestors.
That isn't what you wrote.

He'd have about a nanosecond to put his hands up and/or drop to his knees before a cop shot him, though. The beloved Kyle? The cops didn't even stop him from leaving.

Your last sentence is...shall we say...worded in a very interesting way. Rittenhouse is just...Rittenhouse. Armed black man? Well that's what you call a "suspect."

Isn't that what Rittenhouse was? He did shoot three people and admitted to it at the time. What else would you call him?

That's the problem right there. Armed white man walking away from a shooting? Hey, that's just Kyle! Armed black man? Automatic suspect. Black man walking around a gated community wearing a hoodie? Suspect. Black man in a car with a broken tail light? Suspect. Black man with his hands in the air after cops draw their guns and demand he put up his hands? Suspect. You noticing a pattern here?

Probably not.
I am certainly noticing a pattern - of you conjuring prejudices from whole cloth and pretending they were there the whole time.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
I can envision an event that could spur the passage of more reasonable laws.

If a thousand or so “Antifa” show up at the next Nazi rally carrying AKs and ARs, bait the Nazis into acting in a manner that they all find threatening and proceed to mow down a few thousand Trumpsuckers in “self defense”, we will have such laws under discussion the very next day.

A small price to pay for setting society straight…
The daydreams of the far left are fascinating--and scary.
 

Ford

Contributor
I can envision an event that could spur the passage of more reasonable laws.

If a thousand or so “Antifa” show up at the next Nazi rally carrying AKs and ARs, bait the Nazis into acting in a manner that they all find threatening and proceed to mow down a few thousand Trumpsuckers in “self defense”, we will have such laws under discussion the very next day.

A small price to pay for setting society straight…
The daydreams of the far left are fascinating--and scary.
Today I learned that treating black and white people equally is a "daydream of the far left."
 
Top Bottom