Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Sled21]

(11-20-2021, 04:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: When it all boils down what pisses me off the most about the situation is people died because a 17  year old kid decided to roam the streets during a riot with a rifle. And according to the laws no one is accountable.

Then there is stuff like this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lakeith-smith-65-years/fact-check-lakeith-smith-was-sentenced-to-65-years-in-prison-for-murder-burglary-and-theft-after-his-friend-was-killed-by-police-officer-during-break-in-idUSKBN243246

Where a 15 year old gets 55 years in prison because cops shot and killed his friend. He was involved in a burglary with other people but himself was unarmed and fired no shots.

Seems a little uneven.

Does is bother you that 20 something year olds were roaming the streets with guns and setting fire to people's property, or are you just bothered by non-rioters behavior?

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-20-2021, 04:20 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Does is bother you that 20 something year olds were roaming the streets with guns and setting fire to people's property, or are you just bothered by non-rioters behavior?

It does. Acknowledging wrongdoing no matter what "side" someone is on is actually pretty easy for me.

[Sled21]

(11-20-2021, 04:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: When it all boils down what pisses me off the most about the situation is people died because a 17  year old kid decided to roam the streets during a riot with a rifle. And according to the laws no one is accountable.

Then there is stuff like this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lakeith-smith-65-years/fact-check-lakeith-smith-was-sentenced-to-65-years-in-prison-for-murder-burglary-and-theft-after-his-friend-was-killed-by-police-officer-during-break-in-idUSKBN243246

Where a 15 year old gets 55 years in prison because cops shot and killed his friend. He was involved in a burglary with other people but himself was unarmed and fired no shots.

Seems a little uneven.

That's Felony Murder and is on the books in most states, basically saying of someone dies while you are in the commission of a felony, you are guilty of murder. We had a guy convicted of this when he set a fire, and a firefighter fell off the back of a fire truck and died.  And there was a little more to it in this case.....

Quote:The post was flagged as potentially false as part of Facebook’s efforts to curb misinformation. While 65 years was indeed the sentence initially handed to Smith, it was for a combination of murder, burglary and theft convictions.

Examples of t

[Bengalzona]

(11-20-2021, 04:18 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Rittenhouse was not the original aggressor. All he did was put out a dumpster fire they were trying to push into a gas station lot, and the crown turned on him.  The defense is not allowed to introduce the criminal histories of those that attacked Kyle. 

Bearing a weapon and ordering someone to do something is an aggressive act for people who are not in law enforcement. If you do this and the other person pulls a concealed weapon and shoots you, then they can claim self defense. Literally, the people Rittenhouse shot would have been better off if they had just pulled a firearm and shot him rather than trying to disarm him or strike at him. Wisconsin rules.

The defense can introduce criminal histories if it is germane to the case. Was it germane to the case?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2021, 05:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Bearing a weapon and ordering someone to do something is an aggressive act for people who are not in law enforcement. If you do this and the other person pulls a concealed weapon and shoots you, then they can claim self defense. Literally, the people Rittenhouse shot would have been better off if they had just pulled a firearm and shot him rather than trying to disarm him or strike at him. Wisconsin rules.

The defense can introduce criminal histories if it is germane to the case. Was it germane to the case?

Respectfully, this is completely wrong.  Simply being in possession of a weapon in a state in which that is legal is not an indication of aggression.  Putting out a dumpster fire or asking people not to commit arson does not make it an aggressive act.  There is literally not one shred of evidence that Rittenhouse committed any aggressive acts that night.  There is reams of evidence that Rosenbaum and the other three involved absolutely did.

[Bengalzona]

(11-20-2021, 04:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: When it all boils down what pisses me off the most about the situation is people died because a 17  year old kid decided to roam the streets during a riot with a rifle. And according to the laws no one is accountable.

Then there is stuff like this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lakeith-smith-65-years/fact-check-lakeith-smith-was-sentenced-to-65-years-in-prison-for-murder-burglary-and-theft-after-his-friend-was-killed-by-police-officer-during-break-in-idUSKBN243246

Where a 15 year old gets 55 years in prison because cops shot and killed his friend. He was involved in a burglary with other people but himself was unarmed and fired no shots.

Seems a little uneven.

You will never find fairness and justice that are objectively accepted by all in our society, or any society. Humans are flawed.

[samhain]

We need to recruit some fat shit gamer dorks like Rittenhouse to get ourselves rich, fellas. We can provide the Punisher t-shirts and monster energy. It will be like a cross between a church youth group and a canned hunt for virgins and incels. We wait for some unrest, load dorks into a van after we get their cash, then drop them off in the middle of the shitstorm so they can start shooting libz and then go home and wait for law enforcement and the Trump ball-lickers to start canonizing them.

We will be swimming in a money bin in no time.

Congrats, conservatives. You have yourselves a real hero here.

I actually think that this is awesome. Conservatives used to have St Ronnie and Eisenhower as standard bearers for their ideal of iron-jawed toughness. Now they have a sobbing mall cop wannabe as the ideal to slobber over. LOL. It's great to be a tough guy, but it's okay if you aren't one. You can just get a gun and shoot everyone who triggered you. Instant tough guy culture wins big here.

[BengalYankee]

(11-19-2021, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: This whole thing with the producer from MSNBC is weird because the judge used his name and then banned an entire network over it.

Same judge who (rightfully) wouldn't allow the men killed to be called victims until they had a trial.

The reporter told the truth and the name of a supervisor/manager at MSNBC headquarters who told him to follow the bus to the officer who stopped him. 

That is why an entire network was rightfully banned over it.

[BengalYankee]

(11-19-2021, 09:23 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Disproportionally affected African Americans..

You do know or maybe I guess you did not know that it was many African American leaders/pastors etc, who begged Clinton and the Democratic party to do something because of the very high crime rate affecting African Americans. Remember there was a very bad crack epidemic at the time. 
Remember? 

[samhain]

In all seriousness, I think the outcome was pretty inevitable regardless of my opinion of the kid on trial. It will be interesting to see f Rittenhouse truly wants to put this behind him, as his attorney claims, and if he actually "wishes none of it ever happened".

He has a choice of either staying in the far right hero spotlight, or moving on and starting a productive life. It would go a long way for everyone watching IMO if, first of all, the media and the left would let him move on and go away without harassment, and secondly if he himself opted for a more private life after the trial. I have no idea if he's sincere about what his lawyer states, but his outings with the Trump mobs don't indicate that to be the case.

Even so, age changes mindsets, and time might make him fell a bit differently about what he did when he reaches the grown man stage of his life. Killing people isn't a joke when it comes to someone's mental health, justified or not. I think it would be a huge mistake for him as a person to try and live off of the incident that made him a household name. No matter how much the right may coddle him, he's going to have to reckon with his true thoughts on what went down at some point.

[Bengalzona]

(11-20-2021, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Respectfully, this is completely wrong.  Simply being in possession of a weapon in a state in which that is legal is not an indication of aggression.  Putting out a dumpster fire or asking people not to commit arson does not make it an aggressive act.  There is literally not one shred of evidence that Rittenhouse committed any aggressive acts that night.  There is reams of evidence that Rosenbaum and the other three involved absolutely did.

I did not claim that possession of the weapon was an act of aggression. My statement was "bearing a weapon and ordering someone to do something". That is aggressive. We accept it as part of law enforcement, but not as part of normal society. Claiming he "asked" people not to continue setting the dumpster afire colors the situation a certain way, but does not seem consistent with the situation. Perhaps it did occur that way. You and I were not there. It would not have made a difference in the case since Wisconsin statutes do not preclude the original aggressor from claiming self-defense anyway.

As I said before, the people Rittenhouse shot would have been better off drawing guns and shooting him during the confrontation at the dumpster fire. Two of them would still be alive and all three would be walking free after claiming self defense. I don't necessarily like that. But it does seem to be the way our society wants to go. Welcome to the wild West, or at least the idealized version of it.

[BengalYankee]

(11-20-2021, 04:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: When it all boils down what pisses me off the most about the situation is people died because a 17  year old kid decided to roam the streets during a riot with a rifle. And according to the laws no one is accountable.

Then there is stuff like this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lakeith-smith-65-years/fact-check-lakeith-smith-was-sentenced-to-65-years-in-prison-for-murder-burglary-and-theft-after-his-friend-was-killed-by-police-officer-during-break-in-idUSKBN243246

Where a 15 year old gets 55 years in prison because cops shot and killed his friend. He was involved in a burglary with other people but himself was unarmed and fired no shots.

Seems a little uneven.

It maybe uneven but you are incorrectly equating Alabama law with Wisconsin law. The convict Smith, unfortunately, did his crime in Alabama.
Kyle like it or not was not convicted of any crime. If he like Smith was aiding another person in the act of a crime in Alabama and was not convicted then and only then would you have a point. Or if the crime was a Federal crime. Different state, different law statutes. You make but weed in one state and it is legal but in another state you will be spending time in jail or even worse prison. 

[samhain]

(11-20-2021, 06:17 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I did not claim that possession of the weapon was an act of aggression. My statement was "bearing a weapon and ordering someone to do something". That is aggressive. We accept it as part of law enforcement, but not as part of normal society. Claiming he "asked" people not to continue setting the dumpster afire colors the situation a certain way, but does not seem consistent with the situation. Perhaps it did occur that way. You and I were not there. It would not have made a difference in the case since Wisconsin statutes do not preclude the original aggressor from claiming self-defense anyway.

As I said before, the people Rittenhouse shot would have been better off drawing guns and shooting him during the confrontation at the dumpster fire. Two of them would still be alive and all three would be walking free after claiming self defense. I don't necessarily like that. But it does seem to be the way our society wants to go. Welcome to the wild West, or at least the idealized version of it.

Yeah that's a potentially unfortunate consequence of this case.  if anyone with intent on unrest is paying attention here, they may decide that a few handguns, skateboards, and bike locks are no longer sufficient riot-expedition outfitting.  It's not exactly tough to buy guns in this country, and sooner or later these sorts of events could become a lot more war-zonish if everyone just comes to the conclusion that if you're going downtown, you'd better be armed to the teeth. 

It sucks that 3 people lost their lives that day, but it's still better than what would have ensued if both sides were carrying the official Kyle AR-style rifle.  It would have been a large scale massacre.  Then again, I also question whether armed militia groups would be as apt to go on such expeditions if they knew that they'd be looking across the pitch at another equally well armed group of nutbags with differing views from theirs.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-20-2021, 06:25 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: It maybe uneven but you are incorrectly equating Alabama law with Wisconsin law. The convict Smith, unfortunately, did his crime in Alabama.
Kyle like it or not was not convicted of any crime. If he like Smith was aiding another person in the act of a crime in Alabama and was not convicted then and only then would you have a point. Or if the crime was a Federal crime. Different state, different law statutes. You make but weed in one state and it is legal but in another state you will be spending time in jail or even worse prison. 

I get that. That's why I said when it all boils down. I am comparing results from American court rooms for American citizens in relation to a case closely watched and reacted to across America. These were both results of the American justice system. Which is a focal point in this scenario.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2021, 06:17 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I did not claim that possession of the weapon was an act of aggression. My statement was "bearing a weapon and ordering someone to do something". That is aggressive.

What is "ordering"?  I understand what the word means but I have a hard time correlating the comparison to the Rittenhouse case.  He extinguished a fire.  There is no evidence of him "ordering" anyone to do anything.  You've introduced pure speculation into a case in which a large number of facts are known.  If you're introducing this as a possibility for future such encounters I still have to question the logic.  There's a huge difference between saying, "Don't burn down that building" and "Stop what you're doing or there will be consequences".  Both are "orders" and a reasonable person would have different reactions to the two, the person stating them being armed or not.

Quote:We accept it as part of law enforcement, but not as part of normal society. Claiming he "asked" people not to continue setting the dumpster afire colors the situation a certain way, but does not seem consistent with the situation. Perhaps it did occur that way. You and I were not there. It would not have made a difference in the case since Wisconsin statutes do not preclude the original aggressor from claiming self-defense anyway.

It wouldn't make a difference either way, unless Rittenhouse used threatening language or brandished his weapon.  Shouting "Don't set the gas station on fire" while carrying a weapon could not, on its own, be reasonably perceived as a threat because any reasonable person would make the same statement.  Reasonable people are not in favor of setting a gas station on fire.

Quote:As I said before, the people Rittenhouse shot would have been better off drawing guns and shooting him during the confrontation at the dumpster fire. Two of them would still be alive and all three would be walking free after claiming self defense. I don't necessarily like that. But it does seem to be the way our society wants to go. Welcome to the wild West, or at least the idealized version of it.

Sorry, but no, I don't see it.  You're introducing a "what if" and then treating it as gospel.  Within your scenario are a myriad of possible "orders" with varying degrees of reasonableness.  Tone, words used, the context of the "order" itself would all be hugely relevant factors.  You've essentially introduced a made up scenario to a case with a very clear set of facts and then extrapolated that scenario to future occurrences.  It's a sloppy point at best, IMO and it isn't relevant based on known facts.

[Bengalzona]

(11-20-2021, 06:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What is "ordering"?  I understand what the word means but I have a hard time correlating the comparison to the Rittenhouse case.  He extinguished a fire.  There is no evidence of him "ordering" anyone to do anything.  You've introduced pure speculation into a case in which a large number of facts are known.  If you're introducing this as a possibility for future such encounters I still have to question the logic.  There's a huge difference between saying, "Don't burn down that building" and "Stop what you're doing or there will be consequences".  Both are "orders" and a reasonable person would have different reactions to the two, the person stating them being armed or not.

What exactly did Rittenhouse say at the dumpster and who corroborates that? Is it pure speculation to say that I find it hard to believe that a 17 year old with a firearm trying to put out a fire in a dumpster politely asked protestors wanting to restart the fire not to do that? Personally, I cannot see myself acting that way if I were in his shoes. I don't think you would either.

Then again, maybe he did. I'm not discounting that. Simply offering my opinion. Ultimately, it does not matter as far as this case: Wisconsin does not care whether the person claiming self defense was the initial aggressor or was totally non-aggressive.

Quote:It wouldn't make a difference either way, unless Rittenhouse used threatening language or brandished his weapon.  Shouting "Don't set the gas station on fire" while carrying a weapon could not, on its own, be reasonably perceived as a threat because any reasonable person would make the same statement.  Reasonable people are not in favor of setting a gas station on fire.

I would ask you to define "reasonable", but the discussion on the variations between your definition and mine (and the hundreds of other definitions from the folks reading this) might totally sidetrack this thread (perhaps even more than it already is sidetracked ;-) ).

Quote:Sorry, but no, I don't see it.  You're introducing a "what if" and then treating it as gospel.  Within your scenario are a myriad of possible "orders" with varying degrees of reasonableness.  Tone, words used, the context of the "order" itself would all be hugely relevant factors.  You've essentially introduced a made up scenario to a case with a very clear set of facts and then extrapolated that scenario to future occurrences.  It's a sloppy point at best, IMO and it isn't relevant based on known facts.

Are all after action reports and lessons learned analyses "what if's"?

[Sled21]

(11-20-2021, 06:11 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: You do know or maybe I guess you did not know that it was many African American leaders/pastors etc, who begged Clinton and the Democratic party to do something because of the very high crime rate affecting African Americans. Remember there was a very bad crack epidemic at the time. 
Remember? 

I remember it well, I was right in the thick of it. That said, the harsher sentences given for crack cocaine vs powdered cocaine became the rallying cry for those saying the law was racist. And they are still saying it. They just forget who wrote it.

[jj22]

I think culture plays a key role in how Kyle is viewed. When I see the pictures of him "breaking down" on the stand looking all pitiful ugly crying. I see all those supposed big bad guys we see who feel the need to arm themselves to the t just to go to Walmart and McDonalds. Overcompensating, insecure, unstable, mentally ill, vulnerable to manipulation, and nothing more than a measly boy acting ready for trouble but can't fight, can't cope, can't fit in, and would be nothing without having guns.

People who share Kyles culure go googoo eyed over the guns and pose pictures with him, boost him as their warrior, and become completely smitten. They see and completly fall for the facade. I think we are seeing that with the 1/6 people who once stripped down from their makeup and facepaint, their confederate flags are nothing more than some pitiful, can't handle a day in county jail, wannabe. An eye roll to certain people, yet those who grew up in the culture eat up the facade every time.

Kyle's no warrior whose actions will stop riots forever. He if you believe him, which many do, is that lame, insecure, overcompensating character, who can't fight, can't keep a girl, and is desperate for acceptance. Dressing up to go to speedway with his full arsenal. That for some reason while so clear to some, gets certain people everytime.

[samhain]

(11-21-2021, 01:05 AM)jj22 Wrote: I think culture plays a key role in how Kyle is viewed. When I see the pictures of him "breaking down" on the stand looking all pitiful ugly crying. I see all those supposed big bad guys we see who feel the need to arm themselves to the t just to go to Walmart and McDonalds. Overcompensating, insecure, unstable, mentally ill, vulnerable to manipulation, and nothing more than a measly boy acting ready for trouble but can't fight, can't cope, can't fit in, and would be nothing without having guns.

People who share Kyles culure go googoo eyed over the guns and pose pictures with him, boost him as their warrior, and become completely smitten. They see and completly fall for the facade. I think we are seeing that with the 1/6 people who once stripped down from their makeup and facepaint, their confederate flags are nothing more than some pitiful, can't handle a day in county jail, wannabe. An eye roll to certain people, yet those who grew up in the culture eat up the facade every time.

Kyle's no warrior whose actions will stop riots forever. He if you believe him, which many do, is that lame, insecure, overcompensating character, who can't fight, can't keep a girl, and is desperate for acceptance. Dressing up to go to speedway with his full arsenal.  That for some reason while so clear to some, gets certain people everytime.

Yep.  Nothing wrong with owning guns, but the gun fetishism is some sad shit.  Guns are an equalizer for a lot of people. Does anyone look at that kid and see an actual appropriately developed human being?  Do kids with healthy social lives spend their time with gun-toting militias or do they spend it hanging with friends and chasing girls?  If he had any option of doing the latter, he would have been nowhere near Kenosha that night.  He was playing army minus the actual valor because he was a massive loser in every aspect of his life.  He still is.  I wouldn't be shocked if he got hooked on drugs or hung himself at some point.

[Belsnickel]

I'm just going to leave this here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/liberal-guns-rights-activist-kyle-rittenhouse.amp