zappatton2
Well-Known Member
Hey, all I know it that any time my computer gives me issues, I just light incense and beseech the computer gods. Works like a charm. Or at least as well as any of the magical charms I also own.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
According to his testimony he ran away until he was cornered and had no where else to go.
What surprised me, the transcript makes it seem like he turned his head, turned back around and saw the guy grabbing the barrel, then heard a gunshot, so he reacted and shot.
By this account, the prosecutor is incompetent if he didn't ask, "did you mean to shoot him or did you react to the gunshot?" In like 15 minutes I found in the Wisconsin self-defense law the section that says self defense is waived if the shooter does not intentionally shoot the victim.
Other law in Wisconsin and pretty much every state indicates that self-defense had to match the level of threat and not exceed it. A guy coming at you with a chain is likely not going to kill you. Shoot them once in the leg, not 4 times (including the torso and head).
I get why gun rights people want to justify this as self defense, but they are really overlooking the details of what self-defense means and what situations someone cannot use self-defense as an excuse. I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't stress these points more.
Oddly, I don't doubt this in the slightest.Pfftt... amateur.
Y'all gotta learn to curse in Russian. It's got all the best "incantations" for reviving stuck machinery.
Sure... Except Rittenhouse repeatedly testified that he didn't intend to kill anyone.But, in any event, the prosecution has established that Kyle pointed the gun at the victim and pulled the trigger with every realistic expectation that doing so would kill the victim, so it's a moot point.
Ritttenhouse is very likely not going to get convicted of the charges the prosecutor brought. I'd say it's more likely that he goes free at this point than that he does any serious time.
But guys, be careful what you say, or else he might come to your house to defend himself with a bazooka.
The way I learned it (which has changed drastically since Treyvon Martin and stand your ground), is that you are not authorized to use deadly force as long as you can simply walk away from the confrontation. If you shoot a guy who swung at you with an improvised weapon, that would be murder. If you shoot a guy who points a gun at you, it's not murder. If you shoot a person who's damaging someone else's property, that's murder. I think it's a simple enough concept that life is worth more than personal property, so self defense stops when it stops being in defense of one's "self" (or another person's life and limb, which I think would be clearer if it were justified as "defense of another person's life and limb," but that's a mouthful, whatever, we live in a soundbyte, I get it). Anyway, under that concept, the very act of going into a riot zone, as a "concerned citizen" from another state entirely, armed with a deadly weapon (meaning an object that has the sole purpose of killing other people), would be premeditation of a violent crime. It doesn't look like the prosecution touched much on that, and maybe it's just the same as it's not a logical world in which we live.
Here in VT, I'm pretty sure a person could be considered conspiring to commit violence for showing up at a bar during a Red Sox game wearing a Yankees hat. But, if Rittenhouse gets acquitted from all charges entirely, with no lesser charges, it's basically going to tell the rest of the nation to grab their guns and go hang out at protests. And, just following this logical outcome to the next step, picture two right-wingers shooting each other, because they both pointed their guns at each other, because they both happened to be holding a gun whilst attending a riot, which they both did because of the Rittenhouse verdict. Maybe the problem will sort itself out after that almost inevitable event in the future.
Or, who knows, maybe this is all small fry compared to the weird civil stuff that's bound to keep happening as we sail through the age of unbridled police violence, novel deadly diseases, and political leaders who brag about how big their nuclear button is to hostile nuclear dictators.
Over/under on number of days between the verdict and an appeal being filed?
Under what jurisdiction? USC 2332b only grants jurisdiction if the act is targeting the federal government. The only way this will come up is if any of the victims was a federal employee. Maybe the 3rd victim was? Even then, you have to overcome his self defense claim.Can't they try him separately on Federal Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism charges (throw the mom in for good measure) or something?
Frankly, the idea that he killed people and might get away with it is slightly LESS horrifying than the idea that a court might uphold the alleged RIGHT of a minor to travel somewhere with an assault rifle with intent to escalate and start sh!t against his political/racial enemies
i dont want to bring up an old point, but to be fair, as a producer, baldwin definitely has his share of responsibility for that completely preventable death, yeah.Just remember, people who back Rittenhouse also want Alec Baldwin in jail for firing a pistol, which he was told was unloaded by the armorer, and killing someone.
Is it just me or is it impossible to have an objective discussion at this point?
cyka blyatPfftt... amateur.
Y'all gotta learn to curse in Russian. It's got all the best "incantations" for reviving stuck machinery.
The issues that have caused us to discuss this case are not going away without bloodshed. We are fucked no matter what the result is.