judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'rioters' or 'looters'

[LV426]

ROFL, don't be such a moron..you know damned well what I wrote and now you're just sputtering angry and it's obvious

I quoted you IN FULL CONTEXT.

That context, in full, was you saying those guys were trying to DISARM Kyle ("trying to take his weapon from him" - YOUR EXACT WORDS), not kill him.

Before that, you said that Kyle felt threatened for his life, but then you said that all those guys were trying to do was disarm him, which isn't life-threatening.

Good thing you're not Kyle's lawyer, though I think he's probably just as bad as you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Because he didn't confess to murder.

then why did you say he did? you were quite clear on it

Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
There is no defense lawyer out there who is willing to put their defendant on the stand in a murder trial where the defendant has already confessed to killing two people and maiming a third.

It's funny how you accuse me of "feelings" when it seems your entire defense of Kyle is around his feelings that particular evening.

it's a good thing you're not a lawyer, because you would suck at it........

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

Do people have the right to taunt people with their guns?

Asking for Alec.

they have a right to shoot when someone charges them with intent to harm

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That wasn't so hard, was it? You made the claim. It's on you to show it.

BTW, what does 2:95 translate to regular time?

my bad, 2:55. and I think it's absolutely hilarious that you posted a video you claim shows rittenhouse didn't have cause, yet the announcer throughout that video shows he did indeed have cause

 

[LV426]

.if someone is trying to take my gun, I have a reasonable fear that it will be used against me

Now you're moving the bar.

What indication do you have that those guys would have used the gun on Kyle?

Fuck, you accused one of those dudes of pulling out a gun, but he never used it or fired it.

I think you're done...I think you argued yourself into a corner and now you can't get out.

And no, being disarmed does not lead to a reasonable fear that you'll be harmed by the weapon of which you were just disarmed.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I quoted you IN FULL CONTEXT.

you did no such thing, in fact, I don't think you're capable of understanding any form of context

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Now you're moving the bar.

What indication do you have that those guys would have used the gun on Kyle?

Fuck, you accused one of those dudes of pulling out a gun, but he never used it or fired it.

I think you're done...I think you argued yourself into a corner and now you can't get out.

And no, being disarmed does not lead to a reasonable fear that you'll be harmed by the weapon of which you were just disarmed.

ask a cop about it. come back when you have their answer

 

[LV426]

ask any cop about their feeling when their weapon is trying to taken from them

Kyle's not a cop.

Kyle wasn't even legally allowed to possess that gun in Wisconsin.

Disarming Kyle does not lead to a reasonable fear for his life.

And if it does, then he was too scared to even BE in WI in the first fucking place.

He knew exactly what he was doing the whole time, and "self defense" is his go-to but he was clearly not acting in self-defense when he fired first.

 

[AProudLefty]

my bad, 2:55. and I think it's absolutely hilarious that you posted a video you claim shows rittenhouse didn't have cause, yet the announcer throughout that video shows he did indeed have cause

Thank you. And FYI I am deaf.

I paused at 2:55. It is not clear what those two guys held. Quality is poor.

 

[LV426]

again, your 'feels' doesn't override the actual laws

Exactly...so Kyle's feeling of being threatened doesn't override the law against shooting people.

"Feelings" cut both ways, man...and your entire defense of Kyle hinges on the feeling of being threatened.

Kyle's life was not explicitly threatened by anything...his GUN was, though.

So he's turning defense of his gun, as an active shooter, into self-defense...as if the gun is an extension of his person.

No jury is going to be sympathetic to that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Kyle's not a cop.

Kyle wasn't even legally allowed to possess that gun in Wisconsin.

Disarming Kyle does not lead to a reasonable fear for his life.

And if it does, then he was too scared to even BE in WI in the first fucking place.

He knew exactly what he was doing the whole time, and "self defense" is his go-to but he was clearly not acting in self-defense when he fired first.

I wish I had enough words to describe how stupidly wrong you are, throughout this whole thread.

 

[LV426]

hey, if you need to remain stupid and obtuse, that's on you..........i gave you the laws and examples.

You didn't give me anything, just your insipid insistence.

You fucked up and accidentally gave the whole game away; that Kyle killed those people because they were trying to disarm him.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

they have a right to shoot when someone charges them with intent to harm

STY disagreed that you can read minds. I doubt Kyle can either.

so you can read minds now?

 

[Ross Dolan]

clearly dementia - you are old and gross.

and smoking is for losers - way to be a loser Frank

No dementia...and far from gross.

When you get a little older (if you get a little older) you may learn the delight of a cigar and cognac after dinner...or when on a boat cruise. But for now, stay away from both. You kids have plenty of time to learn how to do the things we adults do.

 

[jakemax]

On Monday, a Wisconsin judge ruled that Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team will be allowed to refer to the teen's shooting victims as "rioters," "looters," or "arsonists" during the upcoming trial.
The lawyers will be allowed to use these terms so long as they provide evidence backing those claims,

The term "victim" is commonly banned during court trials across the country "because it implies that a crime was committed and could therefore prejudice a jury against a defendant."


Schroeder also noted that prosecutors are allowed to use equally as harsh language to refer to Rittenhouse, such as "cold-blooded killer," as they provide evidence to back up those terms.

Fuck you faggot.

 

[LV426]

I was curious if you were a politically biased judge.

Agreed, BTW, on Clinton. Kyle doesn't deserve life in prison.

OTOH, if he's treated as a terrorist, which they aren't doing, then, yes, it'd be appropriate.

He killed two people and maimed a third, of course he deserves life in solitary confinement.

Then he can think about all the poor choices he made that led him there.

If he ends up losing his mind in solitary? Oh well...play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Sirthinksalot]

Are you telling me that people in Wisconsin are dumb?

They elected Tony Evers governor.

 

[LV426]

you don't read very well at all, do you? you make more stupid assumptions than evince......and that's saying alot.

The only way he can prove self-defense in this case is for him to take the stand and convince the jury of his feelings that night.

Just looking at the kid, I don't believe he can convince ANYONE of ANYTHING.

He's gonna face what Fields faced, and it's gonna have the same result.

 

[gfm7175]

Not the law in Wisconsin or Illinois, which are the two states in question here.

You are wrong. I live in Wisconsin and am aware of Wisconsin gun laws.

Is it? Because Rittenhouse's very presence with the weapon in WI was a violation of the law because he wasn't allowed to legally carry that weapon in Kenosha.

No, it isn't. It is legal to openly carry a rifle in Wisconsin. Concealed carry requires a permit.

So he starts his defense as an admitted criminal.

Nope.

So what happened prior to his mass shooting is relevant, specifically the fact that he was there illegally.

Shooting as an absolute last resort after attempting to physically remove himself from the situation is not "mass shooting", moron. It was perfectly legal for him to be where he was.

So that invalidates any self-defense because Kyle has already admitted to being a lawbreaker the moment he crossed the border into Wisconsin.

Kyle shot those people in self defense. He was physically retreating from them, and they continued to pursue him. It is perfectly lawful for an Illinois citizen to cross the border into Wisconsin. It is perfectly lawful for Kyle to openly carry a rifle in Wisconsin.

 

[AProudLefty]

He killed two people and maimed a third, of course he deserves life in solitary confinement.

Then he can think about all the poor choices he made that led him there.

If he ends up losing his mind in solitary? Oh well...play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Like Uncle said, he's a teenager and his parents are responsible for his upbringing. So to give him life in the hole would be cruel.

Remember what the Constitution says?