Kyle Rittenhouse trial

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

Sometimes you have to pick a side. No buts. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

Besides the obvious, Liberals want this conviction because if they don’t get it, the country gets to see leftists rioting and looting again.Biden was supposed to end that. 

[Djgb13 2,338]

Theyve got 500 national guard troops on standby for the verdict. If they did that to begin with we wouldn’t have this problem would we? 

[TBayXXXVII 2,107]

16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He already did time for that. Has numerous sealed juvenile cases as well. Along with stalking, DWI, burglary and CPW.  He’s a paramedic! No he’s not. 

Oh, ok.

[TBayXXXVII 2,107]

11 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Wrong. Judges can only overturn guilty verdicts.

Thanks. 

[posty 2,296]

So I need to know,  if Rittenhouse is found guilty, do us white people go out and riot, loot and destroy things?

[TBayXXXVII 2,107]

12 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

Theyve got 500 national guard troops on standby for the verdict. If they did that to begin with we wouldn’t have this problem would we? 

So wait, 500 National Guard troops are on standby if needed... but they weren't welcome during actual riots in Seattle, Portland, and Minnesota?  That is so weird.

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

58 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

Agreed.  He is using a false equivalence fallacy.  One party used questionable judgment.  The other went there to loot, riot, and tried to kill Rittenhouse when he was isolated from his group.  Those aren’t exactly the same thing.   

They all used questionable judgment. Looters should not have went there to loot and Rittenhouse should not have went there the way he did. He had no business there. But I even said- I don't think he intended to kill anyone which is why I said intentional homicide is not something to find him guilty on. 

57 minutes ago, jonmx said:

If 1/6 protestors were acting like these thugs, I would 100 percent support his effort to exercise his self-defense rights. 

In some  ways they were. I'm not saying one is good and one is bad. I'm saying- it's all bad and dumb. 

56 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

But your scenario kinda happened; a woman was shot and killed.  Do you hear conservatives calling for that killer’s head?

Gee- in one scenario it was a capitol police officer. The other was a 17 year old vigilante.

And you don't see false equivalence there? 

49 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

If they were trying to kill him I would have the same view. Difference is the capitol hill Police were there doing their job. There wouldn’t be a need for anyone to go protect the Capitol.  And I doubt the police would be letting people with rifles anywhere near the place, never mind letting them run around. 

Again- I don't think intentional homicide is the case here- but the other ones, yeah that is a possibility. 

[nobody 2,032]

1 hour ago, peenie said:

Whaaa??? Why do you all keep dragging black people into this?? I'm confused? Why is this part of the story? From my understanding, according to you all, he shot a racist. So why would BLM be fighting against Kyle??

What do black people have to do with BLM?  I mean besides being the pawns in a larger game? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

5 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

They all used questionable judgment. Looters should not have went there to loot and Rittenhouse should not have went there the way he did. He had no business there. But I even said- I don't think he intended to kill anyone which is why I said intentional homicide is not something to find him guilty on. 

In some  ways they were. I'm not saying one is good and one is bad. I'm saying- it's all bad and dumb. 

Gee- in one scenario it was a capitol police officer. The other was a 17 year old vigilante.

And you don't see false equivalence there? 

Again- I don't think intentional homicide is the case here- but the other ones, yeah that is a possibility. 

Here’s the deal, and it’s not up for debate. He was allowed to be there. He was allowed to be armed. I don’t know how exactly, that escapes me,  but the judge threw out the weapons charge. So he’s on trial for self defense, not the other stuff. 

[nobody 2,032]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Here’s the deal, and it’s not up for debate. He was allowed to be there. He was allowed to be armed. I don’t know how exactly, that escapes me,  but the judge threw out the weapons charge. So he’s on trial for self defense, not the other stuff. 

Gun possession charge was thrown out because apparently the law only applied to short barrel guns.  I suppose, they allow 17 year olds to have rifles for hunting.  I'd probably be trying to amend that law to prohibit 17 year olds from patrolling the streets with MP-15s

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Here’s the deal, and it’s not up for debate. He was allowed to be there. He was allowed to be armed. I don’t know how exactly, that escapes me,  but the judge threw out the weapons charge. So he’s on trial for self defense, not the other stuff. 

You need to read the charges again because it is a little more complex than just- self defense. 

[Gepetto 979]

5 hours ago, peenie said:

You are making connections I wasn’t making at all. You can focus on whatever you choose. 
 

When I try to communicate with you all respectfully, you don’t get it. The only time you understand me CLEARLY is when I communicate with you like you are dumb dogs instead of like humans with brains. 
 

Only idiots with no jobs or no lives will be out there protesting or rioting over this dumb ass business as usual sh1te. Your entire lives are wrapped up in this dumb trial that my city isn’t even covering because it isn’t news. You all see your lives embodied in this nerdy soft kid with a gun. The media really has this nation by the collar. Sit and cry or cheer over this B.S. I don’t care. My life is not and will not and cannot be compared to Kyle Idontgiveafock. If I had a gun walking down the street and if I shot anyone, even if they were abusing me, I’d be dead or on death row by now. That is reality! 

You don't care about Kyle?

Did you care about Trayvon Martin?

[Fireballer 2,369]

20 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

You need to read the charges again because it is a little more complex than just- self defense. 

Does WI have a self defense exemption for the reckless endangerment charges?  

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

21 minutes ago, nobody said:

Gun possession charge was thrown out because apparently the law only applied to short barrel guns.  I suppose, they allow 17 year olds to have rifles for hunting.  I'd probably be trying to amend that law to prohibit 17 year olds from patrolling the streets with MP-15s

Posted a little about this yesterday. From what I understand the 'long barrel' exception with carved out of the law to allow minors the ability to use a rifle or shotgun for hunting. I also find it strange the judge isn't ruling on the law, but he's interpreting the law, which I thought was what the appellate courts did. And that being the case, I don't think he should have tossed the charge on a technicality that nobody else has ever considered in 30 years, but let the defense bring it on appeal and let the appropriate court interpret the law.

Even stranger, is twice the judge didn't dismiss the charge on this ambiguity and had he done so during the trial, the prosecution would have had the right to file an appeal to a higher court to determine if the judge's interpretation was correct. By waiting until just before jury instructions, he denied that relief to the prosecution.  He even admitted as much.

Quote

 

He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away.

“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. “I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

 

I just play a lawyer on low rent message boards.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

49 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

You need to read the charges again because it is a little more complex than just- self defense. 

I’m saying his defense is he was defending himself from DPF. I should have worded it better. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

52 minutes ago, nobody said:

Gun possession charge was thrown out because apparently the law only applied to short barrel guns.  I suppose, they allow 17 year olds to have rifles for hunting.  I'd probably be trying to amend that law to prohibit 17 year olds from patrolling the streets with MP-15s

Thanks. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

15 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Does WI have a self defense exemption for the reckless endangerment charges?  

Without looking into it more I don't know for sure. But "self defense" has its limits so it is not as simple as "either/or"

 

Even still too- self defense in its base form works to get you out of a homicide. It does not necessarily work to get you out of recklessly endangering safety. Self defense as a...defense...has limits. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

Also, apparently the jury has asked for extra instructions- specifically on the ideas of self-defense and provocation instructions. Page 4 of the jury instructions focuses on crimes requiring intent to kill. Pages 5 and 6 focus on the first count of first-degree reckless homicide for the fatal shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum.

 

So essentially they are determining the motives for things. I'm not sure if that is good for the prosecution or defense. 

[Fireballer 2,369]

7 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Without looking into it more I don't know for sure. But "self defense" has its limits so it is not as simple as "either/or"

 

Even still too- self defense in its base form works to get you out of a homicide. It does not necessarily work to get you out of recklessly endangering safety. Self defense as a...defense...has limits. 

 It looks like WI does have self defense as a specific exemption in the Reckless Endangerment statute.  It won't let me copy and paste for some reason.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/941.30.pdf

 

 

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

 It looks like WI does have self defense as a specific exemption in the Reckless Endangerment statute.  It won't let me copy and paste for some reason.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/941.30.pdf

 

 

 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self−defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00−0064.

[Fireballer 2,369]

 

[peenie 1,690]

5 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Do you ever watch MSNBC? 

No, never. I only watch local news. It’s called FOX5 Atlanta (ABC).

[listen2me 23 1,537]

 

 

[GobbleDog 815]

13 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

 It looks like WI does have self defense as a specific exemption in the Reckless Endangerment statute.

Does provoking a mob legally count as "reckless endangerment" ?  

[Fireballer 2,369]

8 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Does provoking a mob legally count as "reckless endangerment" ?  

I don't know. If a nationally covered case comes up in WI where that applies, I'll let you know.

[Cantaloupe 44]

2 hours ago, posty said:

So I need to know,  if Rittenhouse is found guilty, do us white people go out and riot, loot and destroy things?

Yes. If a guilty verdict comes out then The Gap is going to have to be picking up some clothes racks. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

31 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

 It looks like WI does have self defense as a specific exemption in the Reckless Endangerment statute.  It won't let me copy and paste for some reason.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/941.30.pdf

 

 

 

What this will on hinge on is how does the jury not just see the act of self-defense but what is reasonable in that defense. Even in self-defense you are not allowed to just fire multiple rounds wildly at people or into crowds or anything like that. I still say I think he gets a shorter sentence with a small conviction but it isn't going to be intentional homicide because I truly don't think he went there intending to murder anyone. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

What this will on hinge on is how does the jury not just see the act of self-defense but what is reasonable in that defense. Even in self-defense you are not allowed to just fire multiple rounds wildly at people or into crowds or anything like that. I still say I think he gets a shorter sentence with a small conviction but it isn't going to be intentional homicide because I truly don't think he went there intending to murder anyone. 

he didnt fire rounds wildly at people or into crowds

[Strike 3,950]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

he didnt fire rounds wildly at people or into crowds

Yep.  In actuality, he seemed to fire with surgical precision. 

[Baker Boy 1,479]

Kyle Rittenhouse Asked To Step Outside And Defend The Courthouse While Verdict Is Being Read
https://babylonbee.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-asked-to-step-outside-and-defend-the-courthouse-while-verdict-is-being-read

Kenosha Residents Paint Their Doorposts With 'Black Lives Matter' In Preparation For Verdict
https://babylonbee.com/news/kenosha-residents-paint-their-doorposts-with-black-lives-matter-in-preparation-for-verdict

 

 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

12 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

he didnt fire rounds wildly at people or into crowds

#1.) I didn't say he did necessarily but there will be consideration given to the amount of people around him. 

#2.) He fired 4 rounds to kill the first person. 

#3.) The jury also needs to determine if the AR-15 is necessary to self-defense.

#4.) The jury also needs to determine if they buy Gaige's story that he pulled his gun because he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. If they do buy that then in some respects you could make the case Rittenhouse caused the chain of events. 

#5.) Again- you lose the right to self defense at some point. In some of the video it looks like he runs away from the action and then waits on people. A jury member could see that as baiting someone into an area. And once you run in self-defense you are not allowed to really re-engage otherwise you helped start it. 

All I'm saying overall is- it is not just a cut and dry thing. The media tries to present it as such. Some people here do. It isn't

[Baker Boy 1,479]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

#1.) I didn't say he did necessarily but there will be consideration given to the amount of people chasing him.

Fixed

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

1 minute ago, Baker Boy said:

Fixed

There were plenty of people around NOT chasing him. 

 

I sure as hell wouldn't be chasing a dude with an AR-15. I mean, I wouldn't be there in the first place but still. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

8 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

#1.) I didn't say he did necessarily but there will be consideration given to the amount of people attacking, trying to severely damage or kill  him. 

 

Refixed.

[Baker Boy 1,479]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

There were plenty of people around NOT chasing him. 

[Voltaire 4,555]

So what are the talking heads pundits saying about the jury taking forever?

[Fireballer 2,369]

13 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

So what are the talking heads pundits saying about the jury taking forever?

Not much legit speculation.  Big channels are mostly talking about other stuff.  

[Fireballer 2,369]

[Strike 3,950]

39 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

So what are the talking heads pundits saying about the jury taking forever?

Forever?  it's been 6 hours.