Rittenhouse… likely not guilty.

[Concart]

I did not see in any of the vids that he had discharged his weapon before Rosenbaum chased him as he was RETREATING then cornered him. Perhaps you can provide a youtube link. I couldn't find one. But not after chasing , then cornering him.
Previous vids show Rosenbaum (I will no longer refer to him as Angry Jew when addressing you, I understand being triggered. I'll just ask you not to mention the Vikings ) had serious anger issues. Or did you not see that?
I'll repeat:

I'm not talking about Rosenbaum. Why didn't Rittenhouse call 911 and surrender at that point? Instead he ran, brandishing a weapon.

I'm not triggered. I pointed out that your rhetoric is intentionally inflammatory. But wow, you are so cool and edgy, so it's all good.

Ask the guys on trial for murder in Georgia how that argument about someone trying to take their gun away. No, that does not justify shooting them. But good luck with that argument.

 

[Nordberg]

The kid brought a gun along for terrible reasons. He showed intent. He did not travel to Wisc. to protect a hardware store.

 

[Concart]

Nothing you say is relevant. What's relevant is did he act in self defense.
No vid of him discharging his weapon before rosenbaum chased and cornered him and tried to grab his gun? Hmm.

His behavior was abhorrent as was anyone's that participated in the riot. He's a needle dicked little punk looking for trouble as were the rioters.
That doesn't preclude the right to self defense.

Actually, yes it does. If an illegal act places you in peril, you lose your right to claim self defense. And shooting a weapon at a person who is armed with a garbage bag is certainly not what you'd call self defense. I guess letting Rittenhouse off the hook in your mind creates some bizarre tit for tat. That ain't the way the law works.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What are they?

Note how Kyle used his Trump check to buy the weapon. All it takes is a conviction the reckless charges to send Kyle away until he's almost 30.

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:

• 
  [*]first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum
  [*]first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting)
  [*]first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber
  [*]attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz
  [*]first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim
• possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)

Note this militia member who looks like a good witness for the prosecution:
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...tually-based-says-kenosha-militia-participant
One of the militia members who joined Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, told Hatewatch that far-right propaganda praising the 17-year-old accused murderer is harmful and said that he was not part of a “well-regulated militia.”

Ryan Balch, the Wisconsin man who Hatewatch reported was immersed in white supremacist propaganda before joining Rittenhouse in Kenosha on Aug. 25, reached out to Hatewatch by phone. He offered additional context about what happened that night, when Rittenhouse allegedly killed two people and injured another. Balch, 31, described the militia contingent that descended on the city in the midst of civil unrest there as being “small groups of friends who went together” in separate groups. He called the groups “ad hoc.” Balch also told Hatewatch that Rittenhouse lied to him that night, claiming that he was 18 years old and an EMT, both of which were untrue.

Referring to the culture war surrounding the violence that gripped Kenosha in August, Balch told Hatewatch in a phone call:

I think that the propaganda around Rittenhouse is not factually based, which I mean, it’s propaganda, so of course. But … it’s really damning [when looking at] the facts of what happened. And, I think them lionizing him is only going to hurt him down the road. It’s only going to [make] the divide bigger. Myself personally, I don’t lionize him. Rittenhouse was a kid who lied to the people he was with. Anybody who was in proximity to him, he lied to us.​

 

[Flash]

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. 

If a defendant uses an affirmative defense such as self-defense, he bears the burden of proof because he is introducing new evidence. A problem with self-defense is that he is admitting he killed the person.

 

[anonymoose]

I'm not talking about Rosenbaum. Why didn't Rittenhouse call 911 and surrender at that point?

If I remember correctly someone yelled, "Get him." He was afraid of the mob. That's reasonable.

Instead he ran, brandishing a weapon.

I saw him running with the weapon at his side, not brandishing. Running to the police from the mob. Probably for protection from the mob.

I pointed out that your rhetoric is intentionally inflammatory.

Actually you are correct but for a reason. And that reason to mock overly sensitive political correctness.

Ask the guys on trial for murder in Georgia how that argument about someone trying to take their gun away. No, that does not justify shooting them. But good luck with that argument.

Completely different situation. Totally. That guy was fearful. Rosenbaum was angry and he was the one chasing Kyle, not the other way around.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

video does not show that, liar

Only the video you saw. LOL

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

yes, they do......when they look at a law and see a vagueness that they can exploit to pressure a suspect/defendant, they will.

LOL. So you are arguing that it isn't illegal because you think the law is vague. It's not the prosecutor that is trying to exploit a vagueness. It's the defense that is trying to use that argument but it doesn't appear to be flying at this point since they have had to try again with a new argument since the previous ones didn't work. They are now claiming that the court should ignore the text of the law and instead rely on the statements by one legislator.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Only the video you saw. LOL

tell it to abc news........it was their video

 

[SmarterthanYou]

LOL. So you are arguing that it isn't illegal because you think the law is vague. It's not the prosecutor that is trying to exploit a vagueness. It's the defense that is trying to use that argument but it doesn't appear to be flying at this point since they have had to try again with a new argument since the previous ones didn't work. They are now claiming that the court should ignore the text of the law and instead rely on the statements by one legislator.

so you're another idiot that can't read and has comprehension problems............go piss up a rope

 

[anonymoose]

Actually, yes it does.

Actually it doesn't according to Wisc. law.

2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Now I realize that will be open to interpretation but if it has to be interpreted that leads to lost in translation which leads to reasonable doubt. I just don't see how a jury will come to a unanimous guilty verdict.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not sure why the defense would have to justify why a minor was armed and went to a protest miles from home. I'm sure there were rioters and looters present that were miles from home. Does the prosecution have to justify their presence at the riot?
Turns out they were in the wrong anyway. The cop that shot Blake was deemed justified in doing it.

Let's see how it plays out. So far, no one will bet me. I guess most of you are in retirement homes without access to money.

Sad, but not unexpected.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And the people Kyle shot were part of a mob violence! Prosecutor already admitted he was an arsonist

Kyle shot dead two people, maimed a third and endangered two others with his wild rifle shots. Are you saying he should get a pass on all the crimes because he suspected one of them was an arsonist?

If you shoot a black man just because you like it and, after he's dead, it turns out the man had a previous prison record from 10 years before does that absolve you of shooting an unarmed man?

 

[Concart]

Actually it doesn't according to Wisc. law.

2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Now I realize that will be open to interpretation but if it has to be interpreted that leads to lost in translation which leads to reasonable doubt. I just don't see how a jury will come to a unanimous guilty verdict.

Okay, so it severely limits what you can do. You HAVE to flee or give up unless that's impossible. Rittenhouse did neither. His claim that he was a 'medic' that was there to help people is obviously not true, as he calls his buddy and then runs away from a man dying on the street. Nice hero you have there.

One of the militia guys calls the people that tried to stop Rittenhouse after he'd shot someone 'heroes'. Rittenhouse was negligent and it resulted in the deaths of two people. But be cool, and describe the one as an 'Angry Jew', and maybe the other as a 'stoned hippie rioter'. That would be so cool, man.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Do you understand the definition of "verified"?

Medical assessment or Court, often using medical assessment. How do you know he was mentally ill?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

tell it to abc news........it was their video

How does that change the fact it's only video you saw backing your claims?

Again, it's the Trump assholes who want to rush to judgement here. I'm fine with placing bets and waiting for the trial. You and I can argue about the evidence and testimony when it happens.

 

[Concart]

If I remember correctly someone yelled, "Get him." He was afraid of the mob. That's reasonable. I saw him running with the weapon at his side, not brandishing. Running to the police from the mob. Probably for protection from the mob.
Actually you are correct but for a reason. And that reason to mock overly sensitive political correctness.
Completely different situation. Totally. That guy was fearful. Rosenbaum was angry and he was the one chasing Kyle, not the other way around.

Oh, I see, so then taking a weapon from someone you consider a threat shouldn't get you shot? You kind of need to make up your mind.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I have no fear. if it's my time, it's my time.

I disagree, but understand why you want to publicly claim so.

As it is, I think the tide is turning against your white supremacist militia movement. All it takes is one atrocity involving your favorite, "collateral damage" and you and your friends will be hunted down like the criminal anti-Americans you are.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How does that change the fact it's only video you saw backing your claims?

Again, it's the Trump assholes who want to rush to judgement here. I'm fine with placing bets and waiting for the trial. You and I can argue about the evidence and testimony when it happens.

you're hedging your bets as a leftie. you hate the idea of someone acting like.......a 'trumpie', and when it all falls apart and the people you support end up dead, you're angry and want that person to pay.....the law be damned. then you make idiot allegations about what you THINK is the law and what you THINK people will do..........

If there were actual video that showed rittenhouse clearly in teh wrong, it would have been played millions of times already

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Actually it doesn't according to Wisc. law.

2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Now I realize that will be open to interpretation but if it has to be interpreted that leads to lost in translation which leads to reasonable doubt. I just don't see how a jury will come to a unanimous guilty verdict.

How does that explain Kyle recklessly endangering a reporter who interviewed him earlier and another boystander?