On-Topic Kenosha Shooter – Kyle Rittenhouse Trial and Verdict

[Outlooker]

https://www.businessinsider.com/rep...-verdict-gosar-arm-wrestle-matt-gaetz-2021-11

So now Representatives are vying to see which one can lure Rittenhouse to Washington to be a Congressional intern.

Pardon me while I vomit.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse is not going to be convicted

He got off because the judge made it clear that there would be no conviction, to the extent that he didn't rule on the mistrial motions as a backup in case they did convict.

Impeach the judge.

My head is still spinning from trying to figure out where the line is drawn. Destruction of property is unacceptable but prejudicial execution by a minor is okay?

 

[rareboy]

AS I may have mentioned...I am so grateful that I live in a country and province where the likelihood of some hack being elevated to the Bench is very remote...not zero...but almost.

I don't think that this travesty of justice would have occurred here.

But in the era of 1960's/2020's racially charged, gun obsessed vigilante system of 'justice'...it seems to have been a cakewalk for a pudgy incel to get off scot free.

 

[rareboy]

The monster America made.

Pretty much on point. We've seen the US do this again and again.

Under the guise of a deeply flawed understanding of a deeply flawed and amended Constitution, 21st century US fucks it up over and over again.

Jesus. What I wouldn't give to have the slaver Washington and Jefferson, the slavers who pushed and created the 2nd amendment and the Madisons back for a day to comment on all of this.

https://www.thecut.com/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-monster-america-made.html

 

[rareboy]

Snatched from Facebook, but it was my understanding that this is how things are supposed to work, which is why Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been permitted to walk away without consequences:

From a military legal worker:
I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.

Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.

That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.

First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.

This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.

However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.

While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.

If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.

He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.
And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.
The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.
I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."

First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.

Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.

Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.

This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.
May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.

This has been my Ted Talk.

 

[gsdx]

^ So, no self defence.

Waiting (im)patiently to read the arguments against this. It should be interesting.

 

[TX-Beau]

^ So, no self defence.

Waiting (im)patiently to read the arguments against this. It should be interesting.

All the people excusing Kyle - including the judge, are pushing their own agendas. It'll be the same shit we've already heard. What was guaranteed from the start, was that the actual facts and legal niceties supposed to drive the trial, were not going to be relevant in the first place.

It's not over yet, now we get the lawsuits, and endless vitriol over the verdict. Letting Kyle off makes things worse for everyone. It's going to cause people to arm themselves and then there's going to be more death. Civil suits have a lower standard of proof, so Kyle might get hit with big judgements.

If that happens, I wonder how many of the idiots cheering him on will be paying his debts.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

^ So, no self defence.

Waiting (im)patiently to read the arguments against this. It should be interesting.

It's going to be the same loop of empty rhetoric. Anyone defending him is severely disconnected from reality and their psychosis is a product of propaganda and bigotry. Any normal person would concede the airtight logic from a person who has been studying the law for over a decade, but these people specialize in running from conflicting data or truth like the plague. Experts that disagree with them are just enemies, commies, marxists, whatever. The truth isnt an impenetrable force anymore, if ever it was, they walk right around it by attacking character or motivation.

The age of concessions or humility is over, we are in the era of doubling down on being wrong, being proven wrong only drives them further away from the truth as they retreat further into the false reality theyve constructed. Its fascinating as far as studying human behavior and psychosis, but on a cultural and social level its remarkably disturbing. 1000 years from now when kids read about this in their advanced psychology courses in elementary school they gone be like "what the eff was in the water?"

 

[cityboy-stl]

Snatched from Facebook, but it was my understanding that this is how things are supposed to work, which is why Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been permitted to walk away without consequences:

This quote above, in substance, says the same as this quote that I've posted before. No one supported it and it was dismissed with personal agenda biased arguments.

With the republican takeover of the judiciary, this acquittal is one more link in the chain dragging the U.S. down the road to a fascist dictatorship. The message is clear: every white supremacist can shoot up people and then claim self defense and get away with it. It is the same judicial pattern as happened in Germany in the 1930s. Not holding Kyle accountable by law, will lead to more violence, more confrontations, more disparagement of the law, and more deaths. It's only going to make things worse.

 

[Dominus]

I watched the trial. The judge was very obviously biased for Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was very obviously incompetent. In other words, I very much strongly suspect that the prosecutor was in on trying to get Rittenhouse acquitted. No one is that incompetent unless they intended to be.

 

[cityboy-stl]

I watched the trial. The judge was very obviously biased for Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was very obviously incompetent. In other words, I very much strongly suspect that the prosecutor was in on trying to get Rittenhouse acquitted. No one is that incompetent unless they intended to be.

That thought has occurred to me as well.

 

[Dominus]

That thought has occurred to me as well.

Call me a conspiracy theory nut. I strongly suspect everyone who was talking in that courtroom was in on trying to get this guy acquitted. The defense played their part defending. The judge played his part by keep pushing the favors toward Rittenhouse. And the prosecutor played his part by being extremely incompetent. Hell, it wouldn't even surprise me if they actually had a formal meeting behind doors and came up with a game plan to make this thing go away for Rittenhouse.

So, why didn't they just not charge him to begin with? Simple. The charges, the trial, and the acquittal were all a show so people wouldn't protest.

 

[KaraBulut]

That thought has occurred to me as well.

The problem is the poorly worded law that was passed by the Wisconsin Legislature that makes it next to impossible to convict someone claiming self-defense:

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies...

A rational person would question why a minor was allowed to illegally obtain an assault rifle and then cross state lines to defend a closed business in a city that he had no relationship with...

But that's a rational person. We're talking about the Wisconsin Legislature who have have shown themselves to be anything but rational.

There were a whole host of enablers (including the people who contributed over $2 million dollars to buy a good legal team for the defendant)

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

The problem is the poorly worded law that was passed by the Wisconsin Legislature that makes it next to impossible to convict someone claiming self-defense

Im barely curious to know the demographic spread of who that law has exonerated. Mostly white men? Probably. I would bet my kitchen remodel budget on it. Maybe I'll google later to confirm, but this is all part of a pattern that hasnt changed since 1776.

 

[cityboy-stl]

The problem is the poorly worded law that was passed by the Wisconsin Legislature that makes it next to impossible to convict someone claiming self-defense:



A rational person would question why a minor was allowed to illegally obtain an assault rifle and then cross state lines to defend a closed business in a city that he had no relationship with...

But that's a rational person. We're talking about the Wisconsin Legislature who have have shown themselves to be anything but rational.

There were a whole host of enablers (including the people who contributed over $2 million dollars to buy a good legal team for the defendant)

That's really incredible. I had not seen the law quote before.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Kenosha Shooter – Kyle Rittenhouse Trial and Verdict [MERGED]

I see this like the mass school shooting discussions.

There is no point to a discussion.

The ammosexuals who are lusting to see every teenager toting an AR15 are in their corner.

There's definitely no point to a discussion when people use immature slurs like "ammosexual" which show their minds are made up before considering any facts. That's the kind of word I would expect from a pre-teen.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Kenosha Shooter – Kyle Rittenhouse Trial and Verdict [MERGED]

The haters would be so disappointed if we didn't show up and yell at them.

You ARE "the haters": you hate the fact that someone actually stood up to left-wingnut mobs rather than run away and let them burn down property.


In fact, this, from "The Truth About Guns", pretty much sums it up:

Basically guys, all the outrage over this trial is because the left is terrified of losing another tool in their toolbox.

[Quoted Text: Truncated] © Copyright 2021, thetruthaboutguns.com. All Rights Reserved.

The Real Reason the Angry Left is Outraged Over the Rittenhouse Trial Verdict (The Truth About Guns; November 22, 2021)

 

[rareboy]

yeah. right.

See my first post in this thread.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Kenosha Shooter – Kyle Rittenhouse Trial and Verdict [MERGED]

I have dreams of the day what Americans finally figure out what the Second Amendment actually means.

In the words of the Founding Fathers, it means "that every man should be armed". That statement assumes they will also be trained.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Kenosha Shooter – Kyle Rittenhouse Trial and Verdict [MERGED]

... play cops and robbers and shoot soda cans in their backyard purposely ignoring the massive gun-driven terror that is every day life in black and poor communities.

Again the crystal ball method, pretending you know what others are "actually" thinking -- and getting it 100% wrong.

Gun owners who insist that the Second Amendment means what it says aren't ignoring anything; that's the media lie because the constitutional solution isn't the authoritarian approach they think it should be.

I've been haunted by that "if," too disgusted to check for an update. I'm ALMOST too disgusted to state the obvious outcome if the colors had been reversed.

If the colors had been reversed the left would be cheering that someone "oppressed" had gotten some justice.

And the NRA would still be supporting the one who utilized his right to self-defense.