Kyle Rittenhouse trial

[Herbivore 1,120]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

People thought that about Sandmann too.

yep, me included there, but would say there was a little more to that

[TBayXXXVII 2,500]

4 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

yep, me included there, but would say there was a little more to that

I don't know there was more for Sandmann.  There's actually a trial going on and my thinking is that he'll be proven innocent... essentially be proven to have acted in self defense.  So, you're going to have a person who was found by a court of law to have acted in self defense, going against people who've labeled him as a white supremacist... never took it back, never apologized, and still have their twitter, facebook, articles, youtube video's, etc, still up.  I think it's a slam dunk case.

[BeenHereBefore 1,493]

35 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

What if everything occured the same but he was 18 and had a handgun?

Same thing cause it wouldn't be legal either.

[listen2me 23 1,840]

4 minutes ago, BeenHereBefore said:

Same thing cause it wouldn't be legal either.

I wonder if they are still looking for all those other people running around with guns drawn

[jerryskids 6,657]

59 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Great, so he shouldn't have been anywhere in the state of Wisconsin that night with a rifle, since it's a crime and he's been charged with it. But you carry on with your pedantic semantic argument---I've got grown up things to do today.

 

 

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Irrelevant.  We do not want a citizen decided that THEY are now the keeper of the peace and who is or is not being a "problem".  We have paid professionals to do this for us.

If I were a lawyer on his defense, I’d be inclined to do some jury nullification and put the state on trial regarding the possession charge.  The state, by their actions, abdicated their responsibilities to protect their citizens.  If you are going to let people riot, burn, destroy, and carry weapons in doing so, you don’t have much of a stance for “he shouldn’t be keeping the peace.”  I mean seriously, in the midst of all that chaos we are focused on “but he wasn’t quite eighteeeeeen#@!”  

And the fact that he lived 20 minutes away, worked in Kenosha, had friends there, but technically lived in another state, might be a good definition of “pedantic.”

[Hardcore troubadour 15,134]

16 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You are the first person to ask me, and I've been mulling this over for a few days, but I think you are mostly correct. The weapons charge is 100% conviction. Self-defense on the 3rd shooting(guy with a gun), not-guilty. The first two guys are a little more problematic for me, I have decades more life experience and the thought that either of this guys posed a real threat to his life seem a stretch, but I still probably find him not-guilty because it's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he felt his life was in danger. Since it's not illegal to be stupid, I think the gun charge is the only place I see a guilty verdict. 

Where I don't thing we 'forget this whole charade' is in civil court. 2 people were killed and one injured by an underage kid with an unlicensed(IIRC) gun. I think that will be trials in the future that will assign some culpability to the people that allowed this to happen---Kyle, his parents and the guy who bought him the gun.

Done adulting for the day? 

[Mike Honcho 5,230]

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

If I were a lawyer on his defense, I’d be inclined to do some jury nullification and put the state on trial regarding the possession charge.  The state, by their actions, abdicated their responsibilities to protect their citizens.  If you are going to let people riot, burn, destroy, and carry weapons in doing so, you don’t have much of a stance for “he shouldn’t be keeping the peace.”  I mean seriously, in the midst of all that chaos we are focused on “but he wasn’t quite eighteeeeeen#@!”  

And the fact that he lived 20 minutes away, worked in Kenosha, had friends there, but technically lived in another state, might be a good definition of “pedantic.”

I disagree, that should be a part of the  focus, we don't enlist kids into the army and hand them guns and ask them to keep the peace, they are given rigorous training before being deployed.  I find it very reasonable that the state doesn't want kids running around with dangerous weapons attempting to do jobs that they have no  business doing. It leads to situations where they get in over there head and things escalate way farther than they would if someone more experienced was there. Pretty much one of the first witnesses said---that first guy was a bozo who didn't pose a threat---unless you didn't know how to deal with it.

[RLLD 4,180]

22 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

If I were a lawyer on his defense, I’d be inclined to do some jury nullification and put the state on trial regarding the possession charge.  The state, by their actions, abdicated their responsibilities to protect their citizens.  If you are going to let people riot, burn, destroy, and carry weapons in doing so, you don’t have much of a stance for “he shouldn’t be keeping the peace.”  I mean seriously, in the midst of all that chaos we are focused on “but he wasn’t quite eighteeeeeen#@!”  

And the fact that he lived 20 minutes away, worked in Kenosha, had friends there, but technically lived in another state, might be a good definition of “pedantic.”

it is telling that we are now to hold this individual accountable for his individual choices, actions and outcomes.

What if he grew up impoverished? With in adequate access to services?  I mean, we excuse the actions of others based on factors, why not THIS kid, I wonder.....

[Hardcore troubadour 15,134]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I disagree, that should be a part of the  focus, we don't enlist kids into the army and hand them guns and ask them to keep the peace, they are given rigorous training before being deployed.  I find it very reasonable that the state doesn't want kids running around with dangerous weapons attempting to do jobs that they have no  business doing. It leads to situations where they get in over there head and things escalate way farther than they would if someone more experienced was there. Pretty much one of the first witnesses said---that first guy was a bozo who didn't pose a threat---unless you didn't know how to deal with it.

Then why didn’t the ones who have been trained do the job? You worry about the lesser when the greater is the real problem. Think he’s out there if the cops are? Why was he out there with a rifle without being stopped? 

[jerryskids 6,657]

6 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I disagree, that should be a part of the  focus, we don't enlist kids into the army and hand them guns and ask them to keep the peace, they are given rigorous training before being deployed.  I find it very reasonable that the state doesn't want kids running around with dangerous weapons attempting to do jobs that they have no  business doing. It leads to situations where they get in over there head and things escalate way farther than they would if someone more experienced was there. Pretty much one of the first witnesses said---that first guy was a bozo who didn't pose a threat---unless you didn't know how to deal with it.

I don’t object to the law per se, just it’s applicability in this scenario.  The age limits are not written in stone; case in point, Rittenhouse is being tried as an adult.  The state has determined that in this case his actions warrant treating him like an adult.  Except for the gun possession, then he is still a minor.  Hopefully you can see the hypocrisy in that?   

[Hardcore troubadour 15,134]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I don’t object to the law per se, just it’s applicability in this scenario.  The age limits are not written in stone; case in point, Rittenhouse is being tried as an adult.  The state has determined that in this case his actions warrant treating him like an adult.  Except for the gun possession, then he is still a minor.  Hopefully you can see the hypocrisy in that?   

If they charged him as an adult for the gun then they would have to charge all of their precious gang bangers caught with guns as one too. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

My God. Could you imagine if he killed a negro? Negro negro negro negro.

[Fireballer 2,641]

4 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

My God. Could you imagine if he killed a negro? Negro negro negro negro.

Calm down Joe

[Fireballer 2,641]

59 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You are the first person to ask me, and I've been mulling this over for a few days, but I think you are mostly correct. The weapons charge is 100% conviction. Self-defense on the 3rd shooting(guy with a gun), not-guilty. The first two guys are a little more problematic for me, I have decades more life experience and the thought that either of this guys posed a real threat to his life seem a stretch, but I still probably find him not-guilty because it's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he felt his life was in danger. Since it's not illegal to be stupid, I think the gun charge is the only place I see a guilty verdict. 

Where I don't thing we 'forget this whole charade' is in civil court. 2 people were killed and one injured by an underage kid with an unlicensed(IIRC) gun. I think that will be trials in the future that will assign some culpability to the people that allowed this to happen---Kyle, his parents and the guy who bought him the gun.

I wouldn't discount this being the outcome

[Hardcore troubadour 15,134]

Takes one juror to hold out. Plenty of libtards in Wisconsin. Hung jury I say. 

[jerryskids 6,657]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

If they charged him as an adult for the gun then they would have to charge all of their precious gang bangers caught with guns as one too. 

To be honest I hadn’t thought of the hypocrisy of trying him as an adult SPECIFICALLY ON THE GUN CHARGE.  He is being tried as an adult on the charge of possession of a gun as a minor.  That is hypocrisy to the hypocrisy power.   

[TBayXXXVII 2,500]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

To be honest I hadn’t thought of the hypocrisy of trying him as an adult SPECIFICALLY ON THE GUN CHARGE.  He is being tried as an adult on the charge of possession of a gun as a minor.  That is hypocrisy to the hypocrisy power.   

Yeah, gotta love that one.

[wiffleball 4,789]

45 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

To be honest I hadn’t thought of the hypocrisy of trying him as an adult SPECIFICALLY ON THE GUN CHARGE.  He is being tried as an adult on the charge of possession of a gun as a minor.  That is hypocrisy to the hypocrisy power.   

Actually happens quite a bit with School shooters.

[Djgb13 2,339]

Since the left has seen that the prosecution has focked up and looks to lose they’re now going after the judge. Trying to make the judge look racist and biased. Over him saying he doesn’t like Asian food  At this point they’re grasping at straws. It’s their go to move. Losing an argument? Call them racist. Getting real sick and tired of that being the lefts ONLY move nowadays to get their way. So much so that people are starting to not care anymore about being called racist. They’ve overplayed their hand too many times

 

https://www.today.com/news/judge-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-faces-backlash-asian-food-joke-t238769?cid=sm_npd_td_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR2OHFIpf9NCTlnFelWVlwCC5FtTI9MI7ve6_0ScllqE7nIGEMRCyrKOqqY

[Strike 5,337]

9 hours ago, BeenHereBefore said:

Sorry no 17 year old should have any place being there. HTH. Also didn't know 17 year olds can purchase  AR's or whatever legally. This the problem and whoever was his guardian. Grandma or whatever should face charges as well. Gramma actually drove him there with it!

Gramma drove him there?  Have you even been following this trial?

[Strike 5,337]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

Irrelevant.  We do not want a citizen decided that THEY are now the keeper of the peace and who is or is not being a "problem".  We have paid professionals to do this for us.

 

The real professionals had decided not to do their job.  If they had been doing their job he wouldn't have been there.

[Strike 5,337]

2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

You are the first person to ask me, and I've been mulling this over for a few days, but I think you are mostly correct. The weapons charge is 100% conviction. Self-defense on the 3rd shooting(guy with a gun), not-guilty. The first two guys are a little more problematic for me, I have decades more life experience and the thought that either of this guys posed a real threat to his life seem a stretch, but I still probably find him not-guilty because it's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he felt his life was in danger. Since it's not illegal to be stupid, I think the gun charge is the only place I see a guilty verdict. 

Where I don't thing we 'forget this whole charade' is in civil court. 2 people were killed and one injured by an underage kid with an unlicensed(IIRC) gun. I think that will be trials in the future that will assign some culpability to the people that allowed this to happen---Kyle, his parents and the guy who bought him the gun.

I don't really care if he gets convicted on the weapons charge, but saying it's a slam dunk shows ignorance of the case and defense arguments.  There is a credible defense against that charge and it has been made.  You should probably just let the trial play out or become better informed before commenting.

[RLLD 4,180]

16 minutes ago, Strike said:

The real professionals had decided not to do their job.  If they had been doing their job he wouldn't have been there.

Agree.

[Mike Honcho 5,230]

18 minutes ago, Strike said:

I don't really care if he gets convicted on the weapons charge, but saying it's a slam dunk shows ignorance of the case and defense arguments.  There is a credible defense against that charge and it has been made.  You should probably just let the trial play out or become better informed before commenting.

There are 582 comments in this thread, many of them offering opinions and speculating how this will turn out, so get out of here with your counsel on what I should or shouldn't  be commenting on.

[jerryskids 6,657]

46 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Actually happens quite a bit with School shooters.

If true then that would be hypocritical as well.  

[Strike 5,337]

34 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

There are 582 comments in this thread, many of them offering opinions and speculating how this will turn out, so get out of here with your counsel on what I should or shouldn't  be commenting on.

Fat, dumb, and ignorant is no way to go through life Honcho.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,134]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

The real professionals had decided not to do their job.  If they had been doing their job he wouldn't have been there.

They were told not to do their job by the left wing leaders in Wisconsin. 

[Fireballer 2,641]

Is "Friends in Low Places" playing in the courtroom during the recess?

[Strike 5,337]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They were told not to do their job by the left wing leaders in Wisconsin. 

I know.  And that is irrelevant to a discussion on whether KR should have been there.  I still don't think he should have been there, but when the police aren't doing the job the taxpayers pay them to do I can understand how he ended up there.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,134]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

I know.  And that is irrelevant to a discussion on whether KR should have been there.  I still don't think he should have been there, but when the police aren't doing the job the taxpayers pay them to do I can understand how he ended up there.

Just want the blame placed where it belongs.  Democrats. 

[peenie 1,906]

3 hours ago, Utilit99 said:

Could you imagine if he killed a person of color?

Yes, I think it would be a much bigger deal in the media. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 hour ago, peenie said:

Yes, I think it would be a much bigger deal in the media. 

That's all???

No. The proper thing to respond with would be at the very least Rittenhouse actually would be thrown in prison for murder and if not the liberals would have made liberals cities their violent playgrounds because of the massive liberal media death incantations.

All because of race and liberal media.

[wiffleball 4,789]

Sounds like there are lesser charge opportunities added now for the jury to consider..

[peenie 1,906]

39 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

That's all???

No. The proper thing to respond with would be at the very least Rittenhouse actually would be thrown in prison for murder and if not the liberals would have made liberals cities their violent playgrounds because of the massive liberal media death incantations.

All because of race and liberal media.

If Kyle drove himself to an out of state Black Lives Matter protest and shot 3 black people, yeah, people would've assumed it was a racially motivated hate crime and demanded he be put in jail. The key is that black folks arem't running around carrying guns at BLM protests because we would end up dead due to the police presence. It's not safe for blacks to carry weapons (unless of course they're criminals). Kyle would've been shooting unarmed people. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

8 minutes ago, peenie said:

If Kyle drove himself to an out of state Black Lives Matter protest and shot 3 black people, yeah, people would've assumed it was a racially motivated hate crime and demanded he be put in jail. The key is that black folks are running around carrying guns at BLM protests because we would end up dead due to the police presence. It's not safe for blacks to carry weapons (unless of course they're criminals). Kyle would've been shooting unarmed people. 

He got attacked. I'm glad those who attacked him are dead.

[peenie 1,906]

4 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

He got attacked. I'm glad those who attacked him are dead.

I think that is the question, right? Was he attacked or was he threatening because he was carrying a weapon?

And this is why I need to stay out of this discussion because if I say the sight of a gun is threatening, then I must admit that police officers have a right to shoot to kill when they see a weapon in someone's hands. It is a threat to them. However, if it is okay to carry a weapon then no one should feel it's correct to attack someone just because they are carrying a weapon in a right to carry state. You shouldn't attack me because I'm armed. You shouldn't feel threatened because I'm armed. If you attack me, I should have the right to defend myself. It's a tricky situation and once again, I wish the NRA would side with gun owners no matter what color they are and no matter their political affiliation. However, it seems this issue is really about certain people and their right to carry and their right to feel threatened over others. 

[Vikings4ever 541]

14 minutes ago, peenie said:

If Kyle drove himself to an out of state Black Lives Matter protest and shot 3 black people, yeah, people would've assumed it was a racially motivated hate crime and demanded he be put in jail. The key is that black folks arem't running around carrying guns at BLM protests because we would end up dead due to the police presence. It's not safe for blacks to carry weapons (unless of course they're criminals). Kyle would've been shooting unarmed people. 

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/07/26/nfac-shooting-louisville-being-investigated-negligent-shooting/5514492002/

Quote

Louisville police say a weapon discharge by a Black militia member that injured three people Saturday is being investigated as a negligent shooting — not an accident — and could result in criminal charges. 

Just before 1 p.m. Saturday, three people were shot in Baxter Park after a member of the NFAC (Not F***ing Around Coalition) unintentionally discharged a gun during a demonstration. According to police, everyone injured was also part of NFAC. 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,134]

If a young black nerd like Kyle went to the riots in Atlanta and did the same exact thing I would feel the same exact way. 

[jonmx 2,425]

2 minutes ago, peenie said:

I think that is the question, right? Was he attacked or was he threatening because he was carrying a weapon?

 

The simple act of carrying a gun is legal in Wisconsin.  Someone performing a legal act is not provoking.  It may trigger some sissy elitist liberals. 

[peenie 1,906]

NFAC??? Geez, I'm out of the loop.