(10-27-2021, 11:27 AM)jj22 Wrote: Kyle came looking to kill.
This is purely speculation on your part, and rather demonstrates right away that your opinion on this subject is not grounded in logic or fact.
Quote:He was right there instigating in the interaction with those he killed.
I don't know that I'd call extinguishing a fire in a dumpster that rioters are attempting to push into gas station pumps "instigating".
Quote:He wasn't some innocent bystander who was walking past and got attacked. But his instigations led to him being confronted and "attacked" as some say.
Again, what "instigations" are you referring to? I have seen no video evidence of Rittenhouse "instigating" anything. If you have such evidence please enlighten us.
Quote:But he wasn't there to protest, he wasn't there for any reason but to kill. That is undeniable.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word undeniable.
Quote:He was quick to engage with protesters and get "attacked" knowing he was locked and loaded and ready to kill. Yea the victims shouldn't have bit and taken the bait, but they had no idea of his plans to murder.
Interesting, so you admit that the rioters initiated the violence. You're really going to have to supply proof of this instigation you keep referring to.
Quote:The problem with the country is a black teen would never have gotten this treatment. So we still have a ways to go for equality and fairness.
I'm quite certain a black teenager would have been attacked by the rioters as well if they thwarted the rioters attempts to burn down a gas station.
JJ is a good guy, but his take on this appears to be rooted in emotion and not in fact.
Here are some facts you'd have to consider when pondering this case;
Kyle crossing state lines is irrelevant. If he had illegally brought a gun across state lines that would be a crime, but he didn't. It also would have zero bearing on whether he acted in self defense. This crossing state lines talking point is really beaten to death by the left wing media. The Young Turks literally can't stop mentioning it. It is, however, wholly irrelevant So, we can safely eliminate Kyle's exercising his right to travel within the United States from consideration in this case.
Did Kyle initiate the violence? I don't claim to be privy to every piece of evidence in this case, but I have, to date, not seen a single piece of evidence that shows Kyle initiating violence against anyone. JJ keeps using the word "instigating", albeit without supplying any proof of such. However, let's look at that. What instigation, short of violence, would allow for the violent attack on Rittenhouse that is captured on film? Saying mean words? Putting out a fire with a fire extinguisher? Being armed in a state that allows open carry? This is a rather important question.
Was Kyle attacked? Here we have reams of evidence proving that, yes, he was. The incident proceeding the first shooting is on video and clearly shows Kyle being chased by a large group of people. One of these people fires a hand gun. The handgun was fired into the air, but a person running from the mob would obviously not be aware of that. Would any of us, being chased by an angry mob and hearing a gun shot from behind us, assume that the gun was only being fired into the air and thus was no threat to us? Would the "reasonable person" think that? We then know that Rosenberg physically assaulted Rittenhouse. There is no video of this, that I have seen, but eyewitness accounts are consistent in this regard. There are also statements that Rosenberg was trying to disarm Rittenhouse, which is technically robbery. Would a "reasonable person" think that there was no danger in a member of a mob taking their firearm from their person by force?
Moving on to the second two shootings, both of which are entirely captured on video. The second shooting occurs after Kyle is struck in the head/shoulder are by a skateboard, assault with a deadly weapon. His responding as he did is the textbook definition of self defense. He was attempting to flee the area and was attacked with a deadly weapon, only then responding with deadly force. The third shooting occurred after Kyle was approached by a person with a handgun who also attempted to disarm him, moving from a posture of aggression to surrender and then back to a posture of aggression. (Of note but not relevant to the case, the third person was a felon illegally in possession of a firearm, also of note but not relevant to the case, all three people shot were convicted felons) This is again textbook self defense.
Really, the case comes down to whether Rittenhouse was justified in fearing for his life before the first shooting. If the answer is yes then the next two shooting are logical extensions of that fear. If the answer is no, then they are not. Other frequently raised points such as; 1. Kyle shouldn't have been there, 2. Kyle shouldn't have been armed, 3. Kyle allegedly possessed the gun illegally, 4. Kyle crossed state lines, etc. are irrelevant to the case. Only one of these is possibly a violation of the law and none of them justify attacking him. Did Kyle demonstrate poor judgment by going there? Maybe, but this is subjective, especially if you take his desire to protect the property of others at face value. Did he knowingly put himself into a volatile situation? Undeniably so, but, again, this is not illegal and is no less true of any of the protestors/rioters.
Let me give you a for instance. I am walking down a dimly light street in a known high crime area. I have a noticeably expensive watch on and am counting a wad of hundred dollar bills. I am also carrying a concealed hand gun. I am accosted by two people who attempt to rob me at knifepoint. I pull my firearm while they lunge at me with the knives and I shoot them both. Did I exercise bad judgment? Absolutely. Was what I did foolish and stupid? Absolutely. Does either of those two points have any bearing on whether I legally defended my person with lethal force? 100% not at all.
This case has become political, for obvious and varied reasons, and consequently has been clouded by the political rancor in this country. However, the bottom line is the incident is not political at all, (although IMO the prosecution of Rittenhouse absolutely is, but that's my opinion) it is whether Rittenhouse acted in self defense. With the evidence available I don't see how anyone looking at the case through a legal, dispassionate, lens can conclude otherwise. Now, there could absolutely be evidence that contradicts what is already available that we are not yet privy to. But given what we do know and the video evidence there can be no other, logical conclusion.
I am, of course, open to a cogent argument claiming otherwise. I would only ask that you not include irrelevancies as described above for reasons already listed.
(10-27-2021, 02:01 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Someone made a good point somewhere else.
We can't keep calling the people he shot rioters or looters - they were never convicted of rioting or looting.
The court addressed this specifically, saying the defense could not use these labels unless they supply proof of such activities first. Now, we, while discussing this, can absolutely come to this conclusion based on the evidence at hand. But we're not in a court of law, we're discussing things on a message board.
(10-27-2021, 02:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The court addressed this specifically, saying the defense could not use these labels unless they supply proof of such activities first. Now, we, while discussing this, can absolutely come to this conclusion based on the evidence at hand. But we're not in a court of law, we're discussing things on a message board.
Yeah but if we're using proof of what we have, shouldn't Rittenhouse be going to jail instead of the inevitable mistrial we're going to have?
(10-27-2021, 02:56 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Yeah but if we're using proof of what we have, shouldn't Rittenhouse be going to jail instead of the inevitable mistrial we're going to have?
It's possible this and other stand your ground incidents lead to a reexamination of what constitutes self defense. Then again, as a country we can't all agree on how tragic unarmed childen being shot is, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'd settle for a compromise where he isn't sent to jail but he isn't turned into some sort of perverted civil war hero.
(10-27-2021, 02:56 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Yeah but if we're using proof of what we have, shouldn't Rittenhouse be going to jail instead of the inevitable mistrial we're going to have?
(10-27-2021, 03:12 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Breaking curfew. Being at a riot. Handling a firearm he wasn't legally allowed to have without his legal guardian present. Negligent discharge.
(10-27-2021, 02:56 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Yeah but if we're using proof of what we have, shouldn't Rittenhouse be going to jail instead of the inevitable mistrial we're going to have?
(10-27-2021, 03:12 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Breaking curfew. Being at a riot. Handling a firearm he wasn't legally allowed to have without his legal guardian present. Negligent discharge.
Breaking curfew is an infraction, you're not even likely to get a fine for it unless it becomes chronic. Being at a riot is not illegal, participating in one is. If he was handling a firearm illegally then he should absolutely be charged with it. But seeing as he has no criminal record his serving any custody time, or jail as you put it, would be very, very unusual. You already admitted you were being silly with that last one so, .
(10-27-2021, 11:56 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: That's an extremely far reaching opinion. The kid did not want to shoot anyone. Heck, he was trying to turn himself in. The police didn't arrest him right away because they didn't even know what he had done. His weapon was lowered hanging from the strap as he walked with both hands in the air trying to let them know what happened and to turn himself in.
For what it's worth (which is very little) I believe the kid had some sort of police training and his goal was to become an officer. Yet, he was not an officer which is why it means very little. As for being in over his head? Yes, I think he was. His intentions were in the right place to try and protect businesses but should not have held a rifle. If he thought being armed was safer (which I would probably think that as well) then he should have taken a pistol and concealed it unless absolutely necessary. The rifle drew attention.
I don't know what his initial intent was but I'd bet he didn't come armed just to defend himself in case he was attacked. He went there to "defend" the town so he probably thought he would end up using the gun for that. If you bring a gun to defend something do you think it will be just to scare off the other people?
Now that's just a logical look at what he might have been thinking. He might have thought he was going to be a hero and shoot people he though were "bad". He might have really thought just showing up and showing the rioters he had a gun would stop them.
But none of that will matter in court.
Intent will be hard to prove and another reason he will not be convicted.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and still say no matter if his heart was in the right place his brain was not. Random people, even with some training, do not help in those situations they just lead to more confusion.
And I'm still curious why not one officer thought to stop and see why the guy with the gun was standing there with his hands up as they were going to the scene of a shooting. Like it never crossed their minds...so he just left.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
(10-27-2021, 03:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Breaking curfew is an infraction, you're not even likely to get a fine for it unless it becomes chronic. Being at a riot is not illegal, participating in one is. If he was handling a firearm illegally then he should absolutely be charged with it. But seeing as he has no criminal record his serving any custody time, or jail as you put it, would be very, very unusual. You already admitted you were being silly with that last one so, .
If it was Tennessee and he was black he'd be in jail for years for breaking curfew.
(10-27-2021, 04:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know what his initial intent was but I'd bet he didn't come armed just to defend himself in case he was attacked. He went there to "defend" the town so he probably thought he would end up using the gun for that. If you bring a gun to defend something do you think it will be just to scare off the other people?
Now that's just a logical look at what he might have been thinking. He might have thought he was going to be a hero and shoot people he though were "bad". He might have really thought just showing up and showing the rioters he had a gun would stop them.
But none of that will matter in court.
It would all matter if it could be proved.
Quote:Intent will be hard to prove and another reason he will not be convicted.
You're very close here. It will actually be impossible to prove without a smoking gun, such as a social media post declaring it or Kyle recorded stating those intentions. As he has been very consistent with his motive for being there, both that night and earlier in the day, there is no way of disproving this or proving ill intent. At least not without some new evidence thus far unseen.
Quote:I'm gonna go out on a limb and still say no matter if his heart was in the right place his brain was not. Random people, even with some training, do not help in those situations they just lead to more confusion.
I'm actually more in line with your way of thinking here. Even a well intentioned person in such a situation can muddy the waters. What complicates this position during the time this incident took place was the very hands off, almost kid gloves approach to rioters in many parts of the country. This is an added danger of not allowing law enforcement to do its job, some people will feel the need to step in and fill that vacuum. I have been told, personally, by many black and Hispanic residents in Los Angeles County that Gascon's refusal to prosecute, or undercharge when he does, will lead to more vigilantism. I can't tell you how often I've heard some variation of, "we'll have to handle business ourselves."
Quote:And I'm still curious why not one officer thought to stop and see why the guy with the gun was standing there with his hands up as they were going to the scene of a shooting. Like it never crossed their minds...so he just left.
This is actually not hard to explain at all. Rittenhouse approached them in a non-threatening manner, surrendering as you describe it. In law enforcement, if you're responding to a multiple shooting you're not looking for the guy who is approaching you calmly in a posture of surrender, you're looking for the guy fleeing the scene. My understanding is they had no description of the shooter either. In a situation containing multiple armed people, both pro and anti protestors, you're definitely not going to think that Rittenhouse, based on his attitude and demeanor, is the person you are looking for. Now, if there were very few armed people there the chances of them confronting him initially would go way up, but that just wasn't the case here. I.e. if you're responding to a multiple shooting you're not looking for the guy being completely compliant.
(10-27-2021, 04:26 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: If it was Tennessee and he was black he'd be in jail for years for breaking curfew.
(10-27-2021, 04:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What complicates this position during the time this incident took place was the very hands off, almost kid gloves approach to rioters in many parts of the country.
I completely disagree with this. History will show video's like below that will show how these rioters were attacked, gassed, beat shot at (rubber bullets) etc even media people were beat. You want to see kid gloves? See the 1/6 footage. That is what history will show as the difference between how "some" were treated and how "others" weren't, and why you really have to question the police and our legal system as politics has taken over. All fine and dandy when you are on the "safe side", but like slavery and holocaust, we are going to need those on the "safe side" to step up and speak out and fight against obvious wrongs even if they benefit from it before anything will change. Those who are on the not so safe side can't do it all, history shows that won't bring about change.
One day the shoe may be on the other foot, and that is why those who benefit from the politicization of our law enforcement and legal system shouldn't enjoy the power for too long.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(10-27-2021, 04:49 PM)jj22 Wrote: I completely disagree with this. History will show video's like below that will show how these rioters were attacked, gassed, beat shot at (rubber bullets) etc even media people were beat.
Dude, are you being serious? I will absolutely agree with you that there were instances in which law enforcement was heavy handed. But to pretend that that was the standard response to the riots the past few years is just disingenuous. There are reams of instances of law enforcement standing back and minimizing their involvement. I can tell you this first hand. You can't pretend that the standard response to the riots the past years has been heavy handed and expect to be taken seriously.
Quote:You want to see kid gloves? See the 1/6 footage. That is what history will show as the difference between how "some" were treated and how "others" weren't, and why you really have to question the police and our legal system as politics has taken over. All fine and dandy when you are on the "safe side", but like slavery and holocaust, we are going to have those on the "safe side" step up and speak out and fight against obvious wrongs even if they benefit from it before anything will change. Those who are on the not so safe side can't do it all, history shows that won't bring about change.
You're bordering on the hyperbolic here. Were the 01/06 rioters treated with kid gloves when one of them was killed by law enforcement? Your position seems to be that law enforcement was universally, or even largely, heavy handed with the riots of the past few years, but not at all with the 01/06 protestors. This is objectively false on both accounts.
Quote:One day the shoe may be on the other foot, and that is why those who benefit from the politicization of our law enforcement and legal system shouldn't enjoy the power for too long.
That sounds rather ominous, what exactly are you insinuating here?
(10-27-2021, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That sounds rather ominous, what exactly are you insinuating here?
Video's don't lie. People do, and I didn't take it as protests in the past decade (they've always been heavy handed to blacks protesters' tho see civil rights movement, and Rodney king protests amongst others. You may be shocked). I took it as the BLM protests of last summer.
I am insinuating that those who are fine with the politicized actions of our law enforcement shouldn't be because we have seen that tides turn and one day, the police force and judges will be majority Liberals and those who stood back and watched, applauded, and defended will wish they took more of a stand. Now I know that is not likely, but it happened in the past and it is one of the reasons disenfranchised people like African American's and Jews were saved from the horrid treatment they received. It wasn't because they fought for justice, it was because those who reaped the benefits of injustice saw the big picture and fought for the rights of the oppressed.
Republicans have gotten away with tons of corruption in the last decade or so. Take stealing the SCOTUS seats, just to openly confirm someone 8 days before an election after telling the world you couldn't confirm a POTUS nomination nearly a year before the election. It happened, people ignored it, most who benefited applauded it. One day Dems will do the same and that is why even though it benefited people, they should have made a stance.
Take the Filibuster for example. It used to be you used to have to stand and give a speech non stop to hold the floor. Pee in a water bottle. Now it is weaponized and you don't even have to work for one. All is great for those it benefits, but one day the shoe will be on the other foot and they won't like it as much. That's why we should all fight to end it (or at least demand it be used how it was intended by making people work to filibuster).
Take Gerrymandering. A GOP favorite. All is well and supported by those it benefits. One day it won't benefit them and they'd wish they stood against it to nip it in the bud for the sake of the greater good.
We see it in our politics currently. Trump kids and the millions they made off of tax payers money. All was well when it was your (not yours specifically, in general to those who may be reading) party leaders kids. Now they cry about Hunter selling his paintings (that people have a choice to buy and it is the heart of our capitalize).
Will you support Dems attacking the capitol if Biden loses? Will you support lawsuits and audits that waste our money even though those who bring them know they have no merit (and find more votes for Biden!) if Biden loses the election? Will you support the black teen that comes to a protest/riot with a hero complex and kills people (The good Klansman of Charlotte). Will you support the police for taking him out to dinner and ignoring him as he stands with this hands up begging to be held accountable as they run past him? If your answer is no, then now is the time to nip it. That's what people (those who benefit) do for the greater good. They see the standards being set and step up and join the fight for change. Not because they are traitors to the party, but because they understand that one day, the shoe will be on the other foot.
Country over party used to be a thing.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(10-27-2021, 05:38 PM)jj22 Wrote: Video's don't lie. People do, and I didn't take it as protests in the past decade (they've always been heavy handed to blacks protesters' tho see civil rights movement, and Rodney king protests amongst others. You may be shocked). I took it as the BLM protests of last summer.
So did I, as evidenced by my response that specified this.
Quote:I am insinuating that those who are fine with the politicized actions of our law enforcement shouldn't be because we have seen that tides turn and one day, the police force and judges will be majority Liberals and those who stood back and watched, applauded, and defended will wish they took more of a stand. Now I know that is not likely, but it happened in the past and it is one of the reasons disenfranchised people like African American's and Jews were saved from the horrid treatment they received. It wasn't because they fought for justice, it was because those who reaped the benefits of injustice saw the big picture and fought for the rights of the oppressed.
I'm not fine with politics influencing law enforcement, ever. The law is the law and it should, ideally, be enforced in an impartial manner. If a law is bad or unjust then change it, but that's not law enforcement's job, that's the job of the legislative and executive branch of government at any level.
Quote:Republicans have gotten away with tons of corruption in the last decade or so. Take stealing the SCOTUS seats, just to openly confirm someone 8 days before an election after telling the world you couldn't confirm a POTUS nomination nearly a year before the election. It happened, people ignored it, most who benefited applauded it. One day Dems will do the same and that is why even though it benefited people, they should have made a stance.
You can absolutely make an argument that they cheesed away a SCOTUS seat from Obama. While technically within the rules it was certainly underhanded. That is one seat, not multiple. Yes, I know where you're going with the Barrett nomination, but hypocrisy is not a crime, or every politician in the country would be locked up.
Quote:Take the Filibuster for example. It used to be you used to have to stand and give a speech non stop to hold the floor. Pee in a water bottle. Now it is weaponized and you don't even have to work for one. All is great for those it benefits, but one day the shoe will be on the other foot and they won't like it as much. That's why we should all fight to end it (or at least demand it be used how it was intended by making people work to filibuster).
We're really getting off subject here, but I'll continue. The filibuster both benefits and hinders both sides equally. One need look no further than Harry Reid's blunder regarding it to see how changing the rules because you can't get your way is a bad way to operate.
Quote:Take Gerrymandering. A GOP favorite. All is well and supported by those it benefits. One day it won't benefit them and they'd wish they stood against it to nip it in the bud for the sake of the greater good.
Both sides gerrymander.
Quote:We see it in our politics currently. Trump kids and the millions they made off of tax payers money. All was well when it was your (not yours specifically, in general to those who may be reading) party leaders kids. Now they cry about Hunter selling his paintings (that people have a choice to buy and it is the heart of our capitalize).
For some, sure. I don't know anyone on this board, well almost anyone, who fits that criteria.
Quote:Will you support Dems attacking the capitol if Biden loses? Will you support lawsuits and audits that waste our money (and find more votes for Biden!) if Biden loses the election?
No, just like I didn't support it the last time.
Quote:Will you claim the black teen that comes to a protest/riot with a hero complex and kills people.
Under the same circumstances, absolutely. My positions are not predicated on the ethnicity of the person being discussed.
Quote:Will you support the police for taking him out to dinner and ignoring him as he stands with this hands up begging to be held accountable as they run past him? If your answer is no, then now is the time to nip it.
You're teetering into hyperbole again here, this has been addressed in this very thread.
Quote:That's what people (those who benefit) do for the greater good. They see the standards being set and step up and join the fight for change. Not because they are traitors to the party, but because they understand that one day, the shoe will be on the other foot.
See, to me fair is fair. If the rules are the same and are equally enforced then the odds of there being a problem decrease. Of course, some rules can intentionally disadvantage a certain group, in which case those rules need to be changed so that is not the case.
Or, to quote Sam Elliot, sometime you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
