George Floyd...

[nightflameauto]

Ah, it seems like just yesterday when the premise of The Purge seemed entirely too far-fetched to take seriously.

I thought those movies were documentaries.

 

[Drew]

Not by by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not according the laws of Wisconsin, where self defence via lethal force is legal when one is in fear of their life, even though you are not allowed to “escalate force” (unless in that case.)

Except, this is exactly what Rittenhouse did, no? He feared for his life, but while you could maybe argue he was not guilty of shooting the man with a handgun, he clearly used escalating force against the guy with the skateboad and the guy who appears to have been entirely unarmed. That's the thing I'm hung up on here - yes, a lot of murky things happened, and the one thing that was CLEARLY wrong, the fact Rittenhouse was there in the first place, doesn't actually seem to violate any existing laws... but he also unquestionably applied escalated force in self defense and applied lethal force as a deterrent in the face of nonlethal force.

 

[Bodes]

I'd say Australia, but even they managed to get their gun legislation sorted, and that's in a land where nature itself has a murder-boner.

You can keep them. We have enough f-witts down here, thank you very much!

 

[nightflameauto]

You can keep them. We have enough f-witts down here, thank you very much!

I think the real solution is Antarctica. With no winter gear.

 

[bostjan]

I think the real solution is Antarctica. With no winter gear.

Depends who all is going. If you sent Tucker Carlson down there, all the hot air would probably melt the ice caps.

Back on the off topic of Rittenhouse, I don't want it to seem like I disagree with the jury. I don't think he was guilty of first degree murder, and I reiterate that I think that this was the worst prosecution we've seen in a high profile case, possibly in our lives. But I also think that having him free without so much as a dirty look from the judge or a fine is telling the rest of the world that we support vigilantes in the USA. Maybe we do, actually, but I don't think we want to make that stance official, do we? And if you want to get into the whole "he wasn't a vigilante because it wasn't his gun and he was there patrolling the streets with a rifle and pseudo military fatigues literally shooting people because he wanted to do good for the community," well, that's not how it looks to anyone outside of the USA, so my point still stands.

 

[Randy]

I don't necessarily think Rottenhouse was a vigilante. I think Kenosha after curfew with the police not enforcing any rule of law was basically Thunderdome and he was one of the guys that showed up with a superior weapon. We can quibble on if being one of the guys that showed up carrying a long rifle was a puss move but it did end up being the smart move.

Everyone there should've and still should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for 100% of what they did there. It's hard to believe that, even if Wisconsin has an open carry law, that it still is fully intact in a state of emergency or post-curfew type situation. Nobody should've been out there, period, if you show up to a riot with any kind of weapon in your hand (even if it's a club or a bat) you should be in handcuffs.

With the absolute implosion of the local police department and clear local bias, the Attorney General should've basically dissolved that local police department and filled it in with the state police and national guard while they rebuilt the place. They were clearly ill equipped (mentally and policy-wise) to handle what was happening there. If you wanna talk about "sending the wrong message", that's a big one that needs to be dealt with.

 

[Xaios]

worst prosecution we've seen in a high profile case, possibly in our lives.

Casey Anthony has entered the chat.

 

[Wuuthrad]

Except, this is exactly what Rittenhouse did, no? He feared for his life, but while you could maybe argue he was not guilty of shooting the man with a handgun, he clearly used escalating force against the guy with the skateboad and the guy who appears to have been entirely unarmed. That's the thing I'm hung up on here - yes, a lot of murky things happened, and the one thing that was CLEARLY wrong, the fact Rittenhouse was there in the first place, doesn't actually seem to violate any existing laws... but he also unquestionably applied escalated force in self defense and applied lethal force as a deterrent in the face of nonlethal force.

Well, he was found not guilty of murder, which imo may have been the wrong charge brought against him? I dunno, effed up situation all around. The Jury was given instructions they could prosecute on lesser charges I believe. It took them several days to reach a verdict.

His defense was “self defense” which was rather easily proven given the evidence.

Strange the Judge wouldn’t allow the evidence of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot people sometime before the incident. Of course that’s only what I heard on the news, so… who knows? It wasn’t part of the trial anyway.

To your question- Wisconsin law is sort of confusing in the use of lethal force in self defense cases, but also rather clear, if the evidence supports it - basically you are not allowed to use lethal force as an escalation of force in self defense, unless you are in a situation where you’re afraid for your life, which was rather clearly demonstrated during the trial given eyewitness testimony, video and audio evidence.

Grosskruetz admitted on stand that K.R. shot him only after he pointed his Glock at him. Grosskruetz explanation for chasing him down was that he thought K.R. was an active shooter.

Defense attorney: “You would agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse correct?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “Once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun, yes?

Grosskreutz: “No.”

Defense: “Sir, look…Does this look like right now your arm is being shot?”

Grosskreutz: “That looks like my bicep being vaporized yes.”

Defense: “It’s being vaporized because you’re pointing a gun directly at him, yes?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “When you’re standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air he never fired. Right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.”

Defense: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.”



I seem to remember video of a mob of people chasing down K.R. after he shot the first guy Rosenbaum, the guy who was screaming “I’ll kill you effin N**** and rip your heart out.” And then he fell down, and one shot killed the skateboard guy, and after shooting Rosenbaum everyone ran away. There was the “jump-kick man” who fled too after Kyle shot at him and missed.

"I thought if I were to be knocked out, he would have stomped my face in if I didn't fire," Rittenhouse told the jury.

Also the Prosecutor was a clown really, he asked Rittenhouse basically “why did you exercise your Miranda Rights” referring to when K.R. turned himself in to the Police, as if to imply he was hiding his guilt. This is the foundation of our legal system- You have the right to remain silent and the presumption of innocence!

And “Is it true you play Call Of Duty?”

The Judge was pretty close to granting a Mistrial with prejudice, meaning the whole
Case would never ever be heard. And the prosecution gave an enhanced video to the Jury while in deliberation, one that was never in evidence!

Before trial, I think the media portrayed it this way and that way, bending the truth to whatever agenda they had. Was KR really a White Supremacist? He says no. He says he supports BLM and people’s right to peacefully protest, but didn’t want to sit and watch his his community get destroyed.

But what I really want to know is what kind of Mother drops off their kid at night and says: “Here’s your AR honey, have a good time, see you tomorrow!”

Here’s the WI law of self defence:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

 

[Wuuthrad]

According to what evidence/testimony? The managers of the car lot both said that was not true, under oath.

Kyle and others, at least from what I recall- they had organised to protect the business amongst themselves after taking photos with the sons of the owners in front of the business and sending texts about doing so.

You are correct that the Son denied organising anything.

 

[narad]

Kyle and others, at least from what I recall- they had organised to protect the business amongst themselves after taking photos with the sons of the owners in front of the business and sending texts about doing so.

You are correct that the Son denied organising anything.

I have never heard that claim validated. As far as I ever heard, they organized to protect the car lot... not on the car lot owner's request! Whether that is true or false is hugely important in understanding the context IMO.

 

[thraxil]

We can quibble on if being one of the guys that showed up carrying a long rifle was a puss move but it did end up being the smart move.

How was it a "smart" move? It seems like if he'd shown up without a gun... nothing would have happened. No one would have died. Maybe a car lot would've been vandalized. We'd see some news stories about protests and minor clashes in Kenosha like all the other places that had protests and we'd all have forgotten about it in a few weeks. Rittenhouse wouldn't have spent months in jail and become a pariah to half the country for the rest of his life.

 

[Wuuthrad]

I have never heard that claim validated. As far as I ever heard, they organized to protect the car lot... not on the car lot owner's request! Whether that is true or false is hugely important in understanding the context IMO.

Many details were stated in court about Car Source, some conflicting. I agree about the importance of context. According to K.R. it was to provide medical assistance, put out fires, and protect destruction of property, and the gun was for self defense.

His friend, Dominick Black, who had been dating his sister and referred to him as brothers, bought the gun for him in WI to hold until he turned 18, but things get complicated with the law after that.

Did he actually give him the gun or loan it to him for self defense? Rittenhouse knows more about gun laws than Black, and given the self defense argument and verdict, and the rushed and arguably inept prosecution, it will be interesting to see how or even if they will pursue the case against Black, since he has been charged-

Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count.

Having looked at some of the WI Law, it looks doubtful… generally speaking there are exceptions for actually giving the gun or just letting him use it, and also the self defense thing arguably voids the charges, so to speak.

Additionally, Wisconsin is Open Carry- except for in a car, short barrel, or machine guns for those 18 and over. 17 year olds can carry weapons legally due to hunting regulations.

Did Rittenhouse commit a crime? The jury has spoken. I guess it’s wait and see for his friend.

 

[Wuuthrad]

How was it a "smart" move? It seems like if he'd shown up without a gun... nothing would have happened. No one would have died. Maybe a car lot would've been vandalized. We'd see some news stories about protests and minor clashes in Kenosha like all the other places that had protests and we'd all have forgotten about it in a few weeks. Rittenhouse wouldn't have spent months in jail and become a pariah to half the country for the rest of his life.

This is an interesting question.

Car Source was already vandalized.

Imagine your sisters boyfriend, your good friend’s brother had been working in the Car Source that was vandalized.

The managers took pics with y’all with your AR-15s in front of the Shop, the owners told you how to get inside, show you up on the roof.

Rosenbaum was unhinged- running around threatening to kill people, rip their hearts out, screaming Racial slurs, etc.

Just stating facts, at least as we know them…

(”state’s evidence” and all)

I suppose maybe it’s safer if we all just stay inside glued to our screens?

 

[narad]

I don't know about you, but if I hire someone for something, it doesn't become a question of interpretation or he said/she said. I don't know in what world the assumption is "hired by a shop to protect it until proven otherwise". If evidence of being hired is having a photo taken with the owner, I think I have a good shot at convincing a court that Mickey hired me to defend DisneyLand.

 

[Wuuthrad]

I’m not making up scenarios though just talking about what was said in court. That’s what this is about right? Reality?

Or are you suggesting that everyone is lying who doesn’t fit your agenda, which is based upon what exactly? Mainstream news media?

But what does that even matter? It’s not a crime, that’s already been established.

 

[narad]

I’m not making up scenarios though just talking about what was said in court. That’s what this is about right? Reality?

Or are you suggesting that everyone is lying who doesn’t fit your agenda, which is based upon what exactly? Mainstream news media?

But what does that even matter? It’s not a crime, that’s already been established.

I'm suggesting I've never seen the shop owners quoted as saying they hired these guys, in any context, media, courts, or otherwise.

To your latter claim about "it's not a crime" -- we're not arguing whether he has been found guilty or not. We are arguing where he went wrong, what his intentions were, where policy goes wrong, and where the legal system goes wrong. Only psychopaths look at 3 people shot on the streets by a 17 year old and think, "whelp, wasn't a crime, nothing to see or discuss here."

 

[bostjan]

I’m not making up scenarios though just talking about what was said in court. That’s what this is about right? Reality?

Or are you suggesting that everyone is lying who doesn’t fit your agenda, which is based upon what exactly? Mainstream news media?

But what does that even matter? It’s not a crime, that’s already been established.

According to you, you know more about the case than the media. Also according to you, Kyle's claims that he was hired to protect property was validated in court.

I asked who validated that, pretty specific question.

Your answer: well, Kyle and maybe someone else, you don't remember.

I mean, that's some weird recursion there. If Kyle makes a claim in his defense that should be validated by a receipt, contract, text message, etc. pretty easily, and you're willing to accept Kyle's testimony without corroborating evidence against two other witnesses saying it's untrue under oath, then I believe you don't understand how evidence works.

 

[narad]

According to you, you know more about the case than the media. Also according to you, Kyle's claims that he was hired to protect property was validated in court.

I asked who validated that, pretty specific question.

Your answer: well, Kyle and maybe someone else, you don't remember.

I mean, that's some weird recursion there. If Kyle makes a claim in his defense that should be validated by a receipt, contract, text message, etc. pretty easily, and you're willing to accept Kyle's testimony without corroborating evidence against two other witnesses saying it's untrue under oath, then I believe you don't understand how evidence works.

Shhh! It was not a crime! Your post is futile!

 

[StevenC]

If I were Kyle Rittenhouse and I was hired by a car lot owner to protect it, then shot a bunch of people, you can be damn sure I'd be bringing the car lot owner in as a codefendant/second defendant. I can't say I know exactly how it works in the US, but in most UK based legal systems if an employee/contractor breaks the law on company time the employer would have to prove they acted on their own and outside of their employment. If this was the case, that Rittenhouse had been hired, he would have made the case that as a minor he was coerced into his actions and would definitely be bringing an easily winnable civil case against the car lot owner for all the mental anguish he has suffered in the last year.

These things didn't happen because he acted independently of the car lot owner.

 

[Adieu]

Is it legal to hire paramilitary child soldiers with automatic weapons now?