On-Topic Kenosha Shooter – Kyle Rittenhouse Trial and Verdict

[rareboy]

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

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]

It is sickening watching a significant portion of a country celebrate vigilante-ism.

It is like watching the enablement of a brownshirt movement to the south of us.

No, it's opposition to the "brownshirt movement" that almost since the beginning of the pandemic has been attacking government buildings, private businesses, police cars. and people just trying to defend what is theirs, the so-called "antifa" who consider it their right to use deadly violence against anyone they see as opposing them.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Obviously most of you are either watching MSNBC or nothing at all. There’s enough turmoil over this without people telling their own interpretations. Stick to the facts folks!!

Facts are inconvenient to the authoritarian anti-life movement who want the right to self-defense chained and shackled.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Anything outside the narrative that Kyle is a god-hero is an interpretation?

Another straw-man argument, coupled to a second fallacy.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

That's disgusting. OTOH it might require Rittenhouse to grow up and gain some better judgment.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

They already commented on it. They recognized that honoring the right of the people to bear arms and defend themselves could lead to messy situations, but they valued liberty more than convenience.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm almost inclined to offer $1,000 to anyone who could convince me otherwise. We get shot in beoad daylight with no gun with a toddler in the backseat.

Often by police.

Who also often step back and let riots rage unrestrained.

 

[Kulindahr]

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 is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible."

I stopped reading there because the guy plainly doesn't know what he's talking about. This is a legal point that was discussed widely on the internet, and it was plain that Wisconsin law does not require anyone to retreat.

 

[Kulindahr]

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)

Mendacious:

• There was no assault rifle involved.
• He has a "relationship" with the city; he'd worked there and had friends there.

 

[gsdx]

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

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

I've done the homework. I did it years ago. I know that the Second Amendment was written and rewritten and written again and again until it was so insanely vague and so open to interpretation that everybody was happy about it, but none of them could agree about what it meant. "The right to bear arms" is the only words that are ever used. The rest of it does not exist in the minds of most Americans these days. They don't even know what a militia is and why it was important to have one back then. A militia is not necessary now, and hasn't been necessary for a very, very long time.

You say that the Constitution says that "every man should be armed", but it doesn't say that at all. And you certainly never mention the 'why'. That is very easily dismissed and forgotten.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Why am I not surprised that you laugh at facts? That's exactly what was said about the Second Amendment during the ratification debates.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

I've done the homework. I did it years ago. I know that the Second Amendment was written and rewritten and written again and again until it was so insanely vague and so open to interpretation that everybody was happy about it, but none of them could agree about what it meant. "The right to bear arms" is the only words that are ever used. The rest of it does not exist in the minds of most Americans these days. They don't even know what a militia is and why it was important to have one back then. A militia is not necessary now, and hasn't been necessary for a very, very long time.

You say that the Constitution says that "every man should be armed", but it doesn't say that at all. And you certainly never mention the 'why'. That is very easily dismissed and forgotten.

It wasn't vague back then, the problem is that most modern folks want grammar suitable to middle school comprehension levels.

And if you think "A militia is not necessary now, and hasn't been necessary for a very, very long time", then you don't understand what a militia is or why they considered it necessary.

There are only two possibilities: either government is some divinely endowed institution whose members are in effect the owners of the people, and so the government may arm or disarm as it pleases, and thus government may have its own armed forces; or that the right to keep and bear arms is a requisite part of the right to self-defense, and from that right the people assign some degree of authority to government to allow it to have some armed employees. The former is a concept that supposedly went out with the Enlightenment because it makes slaves of everyone not part of the government -- but it is the go-to concept of every supporter of restricting that inalienable right.

And yes, the Second means "that every man should be armed" -- we know this because that's what was said about it by those who recognized the need of the people to be allowed their right to resist tyranny.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

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

It wasn't vague back then, the problem is that most modern folks want grammar suitable to middle school comprehension levels.

And if you think "A militia is not necessary now, and hasn't been necessary for a very, very long time", then you don't understand what a militia is or why they considered it necessary.

There are only two possibilities: either government is some divinely endowed institution whose members are in effect the owners of the people, and so the government may arm or disarm as it pleases, and thus government may have its own armed forces; or that the right to keep and bear arms is a requisite part of the right to self-defense, and from that right the people assign some degree of authority to government to allow it to have some armed employees. The former is a concept that supposedly went out with the Enlightenment because it makes slaves of everyone not part of the government -- but it is the go-to concept of every supporter of restricting that inalienable right.

And yes, the Second means "that every man should be armed" -- we know this because that's what was said about it by those who recognized the need of the people to be allowed their right to resist tyranny.

When does this tyranny resistance begin? Cuz so far it just seems to be a lot of senseless death for no reason to nefarious reasons. Again I must mention a woman who was killed by a man cleaning his gun in her apt complex and I'm not even sure if charges are gonna be filed. The only thing we seem to be resisting is acknowledgment of the fact that gun deaths in the US are way out of control and nobody promoting "guns for everybody yay!" is willing to reign it in even just a little bit

 

[unloadonme]

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

The only thing we seem to be resisting is acknowledgment of the fact that gun deaths in the US are way out of control and nobody promoting "guns for everybody yay!" is willing to reign it in even just a little bit

For once I agree with you. The attachment of Americans to their firearms is utterly crazy.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

When does this tyranny resistance begin? Cuz so far it just seems to be a lot of senseless death for no reason to nefarious reasons.

Mostly it doesn't result in death at all: tens of thousands of people resist the tyranny of crime every year without having to fire a shot -- in fact second to hunting, that's the most common use of a gun in the U.S. of A.

Again I must mention a woman who was killed by a man cleaning his gun in her apt complex and I'm not even sure if charges are gonna be filed.

How could charges not be filed? That's clear-cut negligent homicide (assuming the state has that law, most do).

The only thing we seem to be resisting is acknowledgment of the fact that gun deaths in the US are way out of control and nobody promoting "guns for everybody yay!" is willing to reign it in even just a little bit

Again mendacious: it's just that you don't approve of the way they want to reign it in -- and the main reason it doesn't get reigned in is because liberal prosecutors blithely plea-bargain away charges related to firearm laws! They need to listen to the NRA: every illegal use of a gun to endanger or threaten another person should be prosecuted, and the maximum sentence possible be applied with no reduction in time served allowed. And not only aren't they charging violent criminals for their gun misuse, they're letting them walk without bail!

 

[Kulindahr]

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

For once I agree with you. The attachment of Americans to their firearms is utterly crazy.

Actually if you listen to the left-wing political rhetoric about crime, the surprising thing is that a lot more people aren't out buying guns!

Especially since prosecutors regularly ignore violations of firearm laws.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

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

Mostly it doesn't result in death at all: tens of thousands of people resist the tyranny of crime every year without having to fire a shot -- in fact second to hunting, that's the most common use of a gun in the U.S. of A.

That doesn't cut it when you're talking to someone who has literally read of at least one gun death a week in his city for the past two years. Two a day isn't terribly uncommon, sometimes three. And that's my current city, Charlotte, do I even need to post the gun death stats for my hometown Chicago?

How could charges not be filed? That's clear-cut negligent homicide (assuming the state has that law, most do).

How? Beats me. At the time of the shooting the article stated that an investigation was ongoing. Not sure what there is to investigate, woman shot dead in front of her toddler by negligent gun-owner. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that the reason for stalling isn't because the shooter was a white man and the victim was a black woman. BUT, it didn't happen in the south so....

Again mendacious: it's just that you don't approve of the way they want to reign it in -- and the main reason it doesn't get reigned in is because liberal prosecutors blithely plea-bargain away charges related to firearm laws! They need to listen to the NRA: every illegal use of a gun to endanger or threaten another person should be prosecuted, and the maximum sentence possible be applied with no reduction in time served allowed. And not only aren't they charging violent criminals for their gun misuse, they're letting them walk without bail!

The NRA is corrupt and, if I'm not mistaken, bankrupt? Even ignoring their history of racism in lobbying to disarm the Black Panthers, I can't imagine why any reasonable person would listen to them for anything. Their solution to everything is simply more guns, correct? Our goal is creating a society where everyone doesn't have to be a trained firearms specialist just to live.

A cursory glance at some stats would lead me to believe you're undermining gun deaths in the US, totaling at least 32k a year. That's a whole lot of people. Are they pulling that number out of thin air? Your nonchalant response about gun death had me thinking it was gunna be maybe a few hundred, maaaaybe 10k, and even that is way too much. That's a whole lot of life you're dismissing as... ?collateral damage? In 2019 we ranked 2nd worldwide in gun deaths with almost 40k. That's way too much life for anybody to tell me, in essence, "Meh, shit happens." Someone with a more strict respect for life would say a few hundred is a few hundred too many.

Whatever your message, I'm not entirely sure because "guns make everybody safe" is simply disproven by reading the local news, you aren't going to change any minds by dismissing a massive amount of deaths as the cost of being the boss.

 

[KaraBulut]

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

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

Most of the self-defense laws that we're familiar with are better written. Many of the better written laws were designed by legal experts working for think tanks or 501(c)(3) organizations like American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) on behalf of their special interests.

The Wisconsin law goes back to the 1980s and it's a Frankenstein law that has been amended but never rewritten.

The law itself is based upon a premise that most of us would agree with: that a person being attacked has the right to protect themselves. The reasonable reading of that intent would be situations of domestic violence, assaults in public, home break-ins, etc.

The reason that so many on the left are shocked by the verdict is that they're looking at the big picture: a 17 year old who was in a place where he should not have been with a motive that is specious, in a situation- that he created- in which he was in way over his head. That's a "parental view" of a minor's misbehavior. Wisely, the defendant's legal team admitted that he killed two people and wounded a third and they didn't defend all of the "parental view" arguments. They used the Wisconsin self-defense statute to narrowly argue that the killings were self-defense and that Rittenhouse couldn't be convicted under Wisconsin law.

Under Wisconsin law, the defense strategy worked.

This article explains why the conviction- under Wisconsin law- was inevitable:

Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal for shootings based on self-defence isn't surprising: legal experts [CBC]

In the legal view, he was the survivor which gave him the ability to use a badly written law to claim "self-defense". The two dead people aren't around to claim self-defense and the person who was wounded pulled a gun which just supported the defense's claim.

In our system of justice, where the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, these self-defense laws give the person who does stupid things the right to claim self-defense, especially when the law is badly writen, overly broad and doesn't consider the state of mind of the person who did the killing.

Something to consider: Grosskreutz, the survivor of the shooting pulled a handgun on Rittenhouse before he was shot. If he would have killed Rittenhouse, he would have used this self-defense law to claim that he acted in self-defense after Rittenhouse murdered two people. And Grosskreutz would would have not been convicted, either.

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.

This is part of the problem: You're trying to frame this to a bias that is completely irrelevant to the Rittenhouse case.

FYI- one of the cases that led to amendment of the Wisconsin law was a case where an undocumented Mexican immigrant shot a State Trooper during a traffic stop and then claimed he did so "in self-defense". These laws don't consider race, although the selective enforcement of these laws can be dependent upon the whims of a District Attorney.

The Rittenhouse case would have never happened without permissive gun laws that allow someone to buy a weapon who purpose is to kill humans, an Open Carry Law, and a Self-Defense Law that is badly written. Remove any of these laws, and either the situation would not have happened or Rittenhouse would have been convicted of murder.

In a society that allows people to self-deputize, allow them possess weapons whose sole purpose is to kill, allow them to "open carry" (so that you can't tell whether they're a good guy or a bad guy), allows a minor to carry a long gun in public under the assumption he's "hunting" and allows the survivor of a shootout to claim he acted in self-defense, awful stories like these will continue to happen.

As long as the public continues to try to frame these incidents to their own interests- whether pro-gun vs pro-gun reform- these bad laws will not be reformed or repealed.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

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

This is part of the problem: You're trying to frame this to a bias that is completely irrelevant to the Rittenhouse case.

Judicial bias is never not relevant. If Kyle were a legal gun owner, old enough to carry and on his way to the Capitol riots he'd have been shot dead, wouldn't have even made it to trial, and that's before he even fired a shot. We can dance around with think pieces about judiciary this and legality that but ultimately his white skin is what saved him. There's too much history corroborating this for color bias to ever be irrelevant-- even if it makes people uncomfortable to acknowledge just how fucked this society is. Who wrote these laws? Who modified these laws to guarantee protection remains a luxury to their own demographic? Not women, not people of color. They were written by people who have never extended a modicum of their governmental power to anyone but themselves save a few token minorities here and there. The laws are terrible, they protect the wicked far more successfully than they provide justice for anyone who isn't rich or a WASP. The sooner said demographic takes ownership of this absolute Mickey Mouse of a shit show that is American law the better. How do we move forward trusting the same people who have deliberately excluded us from the process of crafting law? We need more input and we need it from someone else other than the same people who are directly responsible for bringing us to a green light for teenage white boys to carry illegal firearms and pop off whenever they feel like it (more specifically when black people are protesting the very power dynamics that made this all possible).

FYI- one of the cases that led to amendment of the Wisconsin law was a case where an undocumented Mexican immigrant shot a State Trooper during a traffic stop and then claimed he did so "in self-defense". These laws don't consider race, although the selective enforcement of these laws can be dependent upon the whims of a District Attorney.

That's a strange cop-out. Laws aren't conscious things, they're words on paper. The people who enforce them have, historically, never NOT considered race. It's actually been the driving force behind much of their law-crafting.

In a society that allows people to self-deputize, allow them possess weapons whose sole purpose is to kill, allow them to "open carry" (so that you can't tell whether they're a good guy or a bad guy), allows a minor to carry a long gun in public under the assumption he's "hunting" and allows the survivor of a shootout to claim he acted in self-defense, awful stories like these will continue to happen.

As long as the public continues to try to frame these incidents to their own interests- whether pro-gun vs pro-gun reform- these bad laws will not be reformed or repealed.

Again, you're dancing around the fact that this law isn't going to allow people of color or women to self-deputize. We literally already have proof of that via countless women incarcerated for shooting abusive partners or pimps. Why? Because white men use the laws they write to protect each other and no one else. The statistics corroborates this far more consistently then some imaginary color-blind world where the law is a living creature that actively enforces equity. Gun violence happens in black communities on a daily basis and nobody is enforcing self defense, we shoot someone and we get arrested. Period. Details don't matter, we might be legit defending ourselves but it never makes it to the narrative. Gun politics is one of the areas where color politics are blindingly transparent. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Now, for the good guy narrative it's lacking in volume. Here we have another incident of "good guy with a gun" who turns out to be a complete buffoon who put the lives of others in danger. In this story, our superhero with a firearm fled after his gun went off.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...-airport-has-long-history-of-crime/ar-AAR0Ut9

If there is a such thing as a good guy with a gun, not enough is being done to promote any incidents where this happens. I watch the news religiously, I'm subscribed to local national and global newsfeeds covering the spectrum from far left to neutral to far right and there really isn't any consistent delivering on this promise that the world is full of armed Supermen saving lives with guns. Again, I would love for that to be true, but not enough evidence is being presented to make it seem anything other than a cowboy fantasy-- based on two disgusting premises, a sincere dismissal of all the lives lost to gun violence and fairy tales about gun heroics that just don't jive with reality. Ever.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

^include black in the inverse scenario in the first paragraph. No one's even denying that multiverse black Kyle would've been shot dead by police. If by some freak accident he did survive, the tone of the conversation across various social media platforms to national news would be concerned with his motivation or right to defend himself. When a black person fires a gun the conversation begins and ends with black criminality, black violence and condemnation.

We have examples of the inverse, when a black Muslim cop responding to a burglary call accidentally shot the white woman who made the call. The Blue Lives Matter crowd slept through the whole ordeal and no one was defending that he was just a cop, a good guy with a gun, doing his job. If irony were a picture it'd be a black cop being charged with murder for accidentally doing what white cops do on purpose all the time. Mostly to black people. I wish to God I could shut the eff up about color, that it didn't matter, but it did, to the people who wrote these laws, and we see that play out in real time every day.