Rittenhouse… likely not guilty.

If he had murdered conservative white people, I think many here would have a different analysis.

What does this kid say the victims did to scare him?
 
Concart said:
So it's okay to shoot him. LOL at you. You are allowed to use deadly force only if you reasonably believe that deadly force will be used against you. .
Click to expand...

Again


What was the DEADLY FORCE unarmed Ashli Babbitt was using at the time she was shot?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You seem to be arguing that someone that is committing a crime can claim self defense if they kill someone while committing that crime.
It was illegal for Rittenhouse at 17 to be carrying a loaded weapon on the street. There is a reason why his defense lawyers are trying to get that criminal charge dropped.
Click to expand...

it was not illegal for him to have that rifle.
 
Jarod said:
I'm guessing Rittenhouse will get acquitted, and frankly he probably should get acquitted based on the state of the law. It's going to be hard for a jury to conclusively decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he wasn't acting in self defense. The fact that he was a smooth-brained white-supremacist-military-fetishist-small-Dick-energy-LARPer is relevant to the story and how he should be treated by society going forward, but jurors may decide it isn't relevant (assuming they even get to hear about it).

I could be wrong and part of me hopes that I am, but part of me also hopes that if the law provides that he's entitled to claim self-defense under the circumstances he successfully claimed it. The law has the same effect whether popular or not, and the way to fix it is to fix the law, not to twist it so that someone gets wrongfully convicted, even if that person is an inveterate fucknut. 
Click to expand...

He was acting in self defense. he's not particularly right wing or racist

He stopped blm hoods from setting a gas station on fire. Then they attacked him and he defended himself.
 
Jarod said:
If he had murdered conservative white people, I think many here would have a different analysis.

What does this kid say the victims did to scare him?
Click to expand...

They attacked him after he stopped their arson attempt.

He will walk, rightfully so.
 
AssHatZombie said:
He was acting in self defense.
Click to expand...

The only way he can prove that is by taking the stand, which he probably won't do because that would be incredibly stupid.

So the jury will never hear from Kyle's mouth just how threatened he felt, and that will weigh on their decision unfavorably to Kyle because it gives the jury the impression that he can't convince them he was under serious threat.

So if he can't convince the jury that he was under serious threat, then there goes his entire defense...
 
LV426 said:
The only way he can prove that is by taking the stand, which he probably won't do because that would be incredibly stupid.

So the jury will never hear from Kyle's mouth just how threatened he felt, and that will weigh on their decision unfavorably to Kyle because it gives the jury the impression that he can't convince them he was under serious threat.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
AssHatZombie said:
He will walk, rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Just like Chauvin and Fields, this little asshole is going away for a long, long time.

He shot someone in the back.

IN THE BACK.

So...he's toast because he'll never take the stand because he knows he'll never be able to convince the jury that his life was threatened.
 
Hello martin,

martin said:
I think the kid has too much going for him. He may be a killer on the inside but on the outside he's personable, youthful and white. If he plays it right, and defense counsel will be sure he does, he'll get off.
Anyway, let's hope the prosecution isn't banking on the jury giving much (or a second's) thought to the State of Wisconsin's foreign trade.
Click to expand...

If he gets off he'll become emboldened and do it again.
 
Concart said:
So it's okay to shoot him. LOL at you. Rosenbaum was armed with a plastic bag. At the very least, this is negligent homicide.
Click to expand...
You asked for a link. Link provided. :dunno:
Where did I say the fact that Rosenbaum was mentally ill made it ok to shoot him ?
Concart said:
You are allowed to use deadly force only if you reasonably believe that deadly force will be used against you.
Click to expand...
or... "the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

If someone tries to grab my loaded weapon from me in anger I'm going to shoot that person every time. That's a reasonable action. Hell , it's expected.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

No you don't, actually...and that's been your MO this whole time.

It was illegal for him to even be carrying that gun that night, he shot someone in the back, then he shot people who were trying to disarm him because he was an active shooter.
 
Hello Jarod,

Jarod said:
Part of me hopes you are right, but I think this kid, due to his mental illness, was truly afraid for his life and shot these people... the jury can easily say the law means he is innocent.
Click to expand...

If he walks expect street protests.

Actually, it's probably to be expected no matter which way the verdict goes.
 
martin said:
Objectively he’s guilty, but our laws don’t work like that either when it comes to socially loaded jury trials.
Click to expand...

Who says this is a socially loaded jury trial? Are you with the RWNJs who don't trust the American justice system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top