Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2021, 12:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm looking into this more in the psychological ways it plays into the biased mindset of an American population currently at war with itself.  In the same way with the Rittenhouse thing, the facts are damn near irrelevant to people and the manner by which the situation is discussed/criticized/celebrated and how that affects the world in which we live.

The OJ trial was an early indicator of this sort of thing.  It's like....people can admit the facts don't really support their narrative but they feel that making their narrative known and putting their solutions into effect are important enough to justify ignoring the reality of the situation. 

Yeah, there's certainly some interesting parallels for all three in that regard.  Unfortunately, I don't see this trend reversing itself anytime soon.

[*Nately120*]

(10-29-2021, 12:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, there's certainly some interesting parallels for all three in that regard.  Unfortunately, I don't see this trend reversing itself anytime soon.

I compared the OJ trial to covid or the 2020 election, at least as far as the mindset of people goes.

Do you believe in the science, or not?  Even if you believe in the science, do you believe in the people who are telling you about it?  Is there a conspiracy?  Even if you are wrong, is it more important to make a statement that goes beyond this situation?

In this case, or the Alec Baldwin case, or the OJ case, or the 2020 election we are seeing people who will say "Yeah...ok you got me on the evidence, or lack thereof, but my mind is made up because the cause I'm backing has ends that justify the means."  Part of supporting our system and freedom and all that is accepting when people you don't like are getting a fair shake...at least in the actual courtroom.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2021, 08:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Right now, based on the evidence and the law, Rittenhouse should only answer for the charge of illegal possession that he is charged with, not the others. We have a system of innocent until proven guilty in this country, and the illegal possession charge is the only one I have seen proof of his guilt for.

I neglected to raise the following point when I initially responded to this post.  I agree with your assessment, but it should be noted that he should be tried for illegal possession in juvenile court, not adult, as he was a minor at the time.  The only reason he is in adult court is due to a direct filing by the DA.  Which BTW has been removed as an option in CA as leftists do not believe this is fair or just and that only a judge should be able to send a juvenile case to adult court.  Odd that I don't hear anyone mentioning that in regard to this case.  If he is indeed acquitted due to self defense, as the two of us agree, then that charge should be certified down to juvenile court and handled there.

[jj22]

To believe in his self defense argument that some are quick to support is to believe that when someone comes to you (travels to your house, your neighborhood, your school, your place of business - all the way from another state), and kills you after you respond to their confrontation and maybe **gasp** fight them, chase them, throw something at them just for then cries and claims self defense. Is a dangerous twist to the law. It shouldn't be accepted and if not for politics it wouldn't be.

The issue is to the common folk. That isn't self defense. That is getting involved in some mess you shouldn't have been involved in and getting away with murder after you went looking for trouble.

Example. When I was young, a group of kids got off at my bus stop (not theirs) to fight me (after bullying me all bus ride for half the school year - so they were looking for trouble). Only 1 actually fought me, but I fought back and handled myself enough to where I wasn't bullied any longer, and if they would have shot me, who would have supported their self defense claim? No one hopefully. But politics aren't involved and common sense would be.

What are we telling people who want to kill? Go seek trouble, start trouble, and kill and claim self defense.

The truth is self defense doesn't mean you can bringing a gun to a fist fight (protests) that you traveled to, shoot someone that you are now scared of, and after claim self defense.

This goes back to my point about be careful what you support because you support the shooter. This law won't change until black people start following white teens and starting fights with them and then killing them as the white teen begins to get the better of them (ala Zimmerman). Or when black teens (or any minority teen) go to the next "Good People" Nazi protests and get's chased with those holding torches and turns and shoots a couple of them. It won't change until a black husband and wife comes out their house and points guns at a group of passing white students (who weren't even heading to their house but headed up the street to protest outside of someone else house) threatening them.

And there lies the problem with America and what we've seen from the beginning. The only time the NRA for example supported gun laws was when black people thought the 2nd amendment was meant for them and tried to open carry. Things tend to not change until those oppressed start taking advantage of the laws that those who oppress use against them and have gotten away with in our legal system.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2021, 12:44 PM)jj22 Wrote: To believe in his self defense argument that some are quick to support is to believe that when someone comes to you (travels to your house, your neighborhood, your school, your place of business - all the way from another state, and kills you after you respond to their confrontation and maybe **gasp** fight them, chase them, throw something at them and then cries and claims self defense. Is a dangerous twist to the law. It shouldn't be accepted and if not for politics it wouldn't be.

Dude, no it's not.  You're standing in legal quicksand here.  It wouldn't matter if Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha from Hong Kong, that has zero bearing on a claim of self defense.  

Quote:The issue is to the common folk. That isn't self defense. That is getting involved in some mess you shouldn't have been involved in and getting away with murder after you went looking for trouble.

Again, no.  He has as much of a right to be there as absolutely anyone else who was there.  You don't get free reign to assault someone if they don't live in the area in which they're being assaulted.

Quote:Example. When I was young, a group of kids got off at my bus stop (not theirs) to fight me (after bullying me all bus ride for half the school year, so they were looking for trouble). Only 1 actually fought me, but I fought back and handled myself enough to where I wasn't bullied any longer, and if they would have shot me, who would have supported their self defense claim? No one hopefully. But politics aren't involved and common sense would be.

You are correct, as they were the aggressors, not you.  Show me one piece of evidence that Rittenhouse initiated the physical confrontation(s).  We have reams of actual video showing the exact opposite.  You're being willfully blind to the facts here, dude.  Your position is one of pure emotion and is completely divorced from the law.

Let's say I travel to the Bay Area to join a counter protest for a cause I believe in.  I am armed, as I am legally allowed to be within the state of California.  Some protestors initiate a physical confrontation with me.  I attempt to flee the confrontation rather than fight.  They pursue me, while someone fires a hand gun behind me.  Then a guy catches up to me and attempts to rob me of my firearm.  I then shoot him to prevent this.  As I continue to attempt to flee, another protestor strikes me in the head and shoulder area with a skateboard.  While he continues attempts to strike me with a skateboard I shoot him.  Does my coming from the Los Angeles area to join a counter protest in the Bay Area have any bearing whatsoever on whether I was legally defending myself?  Absolutely, 100%, no!

Your position here is simply not a tenable one.  It's demonstrably false with a foundation constructed solely of irrelevancies.

[jj22]

(10-29-2021, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, no it's not.  You're standing in legal quicksand here.  It wouldn't matter if Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha from Hong Kong, that has zero bearing on a claim of self defense.  



Again, no.  He has as much of a right to be there as absolutely anyone else who was there.  You don't get free reign to assault someone if they don't live in the area in which they're being assaulted.


You are correct, as they were the aggressors, not you.  Show me one piece of evidence that Rittenhouse initiated the physical confrontation(s).  We have reams of actual video showing the exact opposite.  You're being willfully blind to the facts here, dude.  Your position is one of pure emotion and is completely divorced from the law.

Let's say I travel to the Bay Area to join a counter protest for a cause I believe in.  I am armed, as I am legally allowed to be within the state of California.  Some protestors initiate a physical confrontation with me.  I attempt to flee the confrontation rather than fight.  They pursue me, while someone fires a hand gun behind me.  Then a guy catches up to me and attempts to rob me of my firearm.  I then shoot him to prevent this.  As I continue to attempt to flee, another protestor strikes me in the head and shoulder area with a skateboard.  While he continues attempts to strike me with a skateboard I shoot him.  Does my coming from the Los Angeles area to join a counter protest in the Bay Area have any bearing whatsoever on whether I was legally defending myself?  Absolutely, 100%, no!

Your position here is simply not a tenable one.  It's demonstrably false with a foundation constructed solely of irrelevancies.

Oh but it does. You just are okay with it. Let the shoe be on the other foot. I come to your house, start a fight with you in your yard, and then kill you and claim self defense when you were unarmed all because you threw something at me?! If politics weren't involved people would side with you over the guy who came to you and killed you. That is undeniable. I do have the right to come to you tho and go anywhere I want as you say, so are you saying that would be my right to have killed you?

We have to be careful what we accept as right just because it doesn't happen to us. One day it may. And big picture thinkers understand that. It's why slavery for example was "legal" but didn't make it right and thankfully people didn't just except it for too long (they did for over 200 years) as such when they knew if it was them they wouldn't.

[HarleyDog]

(10-29-2021, 12:44 PM)jj22 Wrote: To believe in his self defense argument that some are quick to support is to believe that when someone comes to you (travels to your house, your neighborhood, your school, your place of business - all the way from another state), and kills you after you respond to their confrontation and maybe **gasp** fight them, chase them, throw something at them just for then cries and claims self defense. Is a dangerous twist to the law. It shouldn't be accepted and if not for politics it wouldn't be.

I'm curious and this may have already been asked or pointed out (if so I missed it), but has anyone determined where the three men were from that attacked Rittenhouse? Not that it matters but for the sake of this tidbit I am curious.

[jj22]

(10-29-2021, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, no it's not.  You're standing in legal quicksand here.  It wouldn't matter if Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha from Hong Kong, that has zero bearing on a claim of self defense.  



Again, no.  He has as much of a right to be there as absolutely anyone else who was there.  You don't get free reign to assault someone if they don't live in the area in which they're being assaulted.


You are correct, as they were the aggressors, not you.  Show me one piece of evidence that Rittenhouse initiated the physical confrontation(s).  We have reams of actual video showing the exact opposite.  You're being willfully blind to the facts here, dude.  Your position is one of pure emotion and is completely divorced from the law.

Let's say I travel to the Bay Area to join a counter protest for a cause I believe in.  I am armed, as I am legally allowed to be within the state of California.  Some protestors initiate a physical confrontation with me.  I attempt to flee the confrontation rather than fight.  They pursue me, while someone fires a hand gun behind me.  Then a guy catches up to me and attempts to rob me of my firearm.  I then shoot him to prevent this.  As I continue to attempt to flee, another protestor strikes me in the head and shoulder area with a skateboard.  While he continues attempts to strike me with a skateboard I shoot him.  Does my coming from the Los Angeles area to join a counter protest in the Bay Area have any bearing whatsoever on whether I was legally defending myself?  Absolutely, 100%, no!

Your position here is simply not a tenable one.  It's demonstrably false with a foundation constructed solely of irrelevancies.

My position is one which conservatives used to support. Self accountability. My position is you should have stayed your ass home! You didn't. You should be held accountable for your actions, and your decisions. You had the right to go. But there are consequences to your actions and thus you must man up and face them. Nothing good was going to come from you going. So you risked it by going.

[jj22]

(10-29-2021, 01:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I'm curious and this may have already been asked or pointed out (if so I missed it), but has anyone determined where the three men were from that attacked Rittenhouse? Not that it matters but for the sake of this tidbit I am curious.

I haven't no. Anyone else? It's possible they came from outside, many do during these events. But note, I haven't argued they shouldn't have been killed. They were somewhere they shouldn't have been either, especially if they were rioting and everything. What I am arguing and the feeling I get when listening to Rittenhouse supporters is that he is the "victim", and I don't agree. I think we have to face the consequences of our actions and rather we like it or not this was a choice by all involved and whatever came from it came from it. But Rittenhouse should face consequences for his actions, and the lesson here (that you can kill and claim self defense for being in some mess you had a choice to be in just seems dangerous to me. But I bring up race a lot in this thread not to race bait but because I genuinely don't believe it would be the same if flipped. So I worry this is less about law and more about privilege. And that is "interesting" to me because that is so clear to minorities, but can't be seen or understood by others.

So stand your ground laws and self defense laws really don't apply to everyone. And that is kinda the ugly underbelly of all of this. If laws applied to all, you wouldn't see such emotions when these things come up.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2021, 01:02 PM)jj22 Wrote: Oh but it does. You just are okay with it. Let the shoe be on the other foot. I come to your house, start a fight with you in your yard, and then kill you and claim self defense when you were unarmed all because you threw something at me?!

This is an apples and bananas comparison.  Coming to someone's house to initiate a confrontation is in no way analogous to coming to a city to counter protest.

Quote:If politics weren't involved people would side with you over the guy who came to you and killed you. That is undeniable. I do have the right to come to you tho and go anywhere I want as you say, so are you saying that would be my right to have killed you?

Again, your analogy is horribly flawed as there is an immense difference between coming to someone's private residence to initiate a confrontation and going to a public area to counter protest.  Using your analogy anyone coming to counter protest anything, ever, is free game to assault with impunity because they "shouldn't be there".

Quote:We have to be careful what we accept as right just because it doesn't happen to us. One day it may. And big picture thinkers understand that. It's why slavery for example was "legal" but didn't make it right and thankfully people didn't just except it for too long (they did for over 200 years) as such when they knew if it was them they wouldn't.

Here's what you keep ignoring, Kyle was the one who was attacked.  If he had initiated a physical confrontation then I'd be saying to throw the book at him.  But you are, and must be, entitled to defend you person from an aggressor trying to harm you.  I really don't know any simpler way to describe to you just how wrong your position on this issue is.

As for the race angle, and we're deep in the realm of speculation here, I would be saying the exact same things if Rittenhouse was black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American etc.  You want to speculate how different the response of the criminal justice system would be?  Could they do worse than charging a minor in adult court for 1st degree murder?  

Sincerely, I think we're at the point of diminishing returns here.  If you still persist in this demonstrably flawed position there's really nothing left to debate.  And I don't say that in a mean spirited fashion.

[masonbengals fan]

(10-29-2021, 01:10 PM)jj22 Wrote: I haven't no. Anyone else? It's possible they came from outside, many do during these events. But note, I haven't argued they shouldn't have been killed. They were somewhere they shouldn't have been either, especially if they were rioting and everything. What I am arguing and the feeling I get when listening to Rittenhouse supporters is that he is the "victim", and I don't agree. I think we have to face the consequences of our actions and rather we like it or not this was a choice by all involved and whatever came from it came from it. But Rittenhouse should face consequences for his actions, and the lesson here (that you can kill and claim self defense for being in some mess you had a choice to be in just seems dangerous to me. But I bring up race a lot in this thread not to race bait but because I genuinely don't believe it would be the same if flipped. So I worry this is less about law and more about privilege. And that is "interesting" to me because that is so clear to minorities, but can't be seen or understood by others.

So stand your ground laws and self defense laws really don't apply to everyone. And that is kinda the ugly underbelly of all of this. If laws applied to all, you wouldn't see such emotions when these things come up.

 I'd venture a guess that there were hundreds of people from out of state there that night. The crowd was completely out of control. Not sure that I would be considered a Rittenhouse supporter (He showed piss poor judgement even going there as a 17 year old) but I don't think he's guilty of murder either. I don't think he's a victim but he possibly would have been without killing those people. Possibly the victim of an out of control prosecutor. When I read thru your post I find the word fight should often be replaced with attack. At least in my mind. It makes all the difference in the world. 

Those laws should absolutely apply to one & all. 

[Dill]

(10-29-2021, 01:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I'm curious and this may have already been asked or pointed out (if so I missed it), but has anyone determined where the three men were from that attacked Rittenhouse? Not that it matters but for the sake of this tidbit I am curious.

Pretty sure they were all from Kenosha. The one shot in the arm, carrying a pistol, was a medic. 

The NYT has an interesting video interviewing the people who shot the video footage and the girlfriend of one of the victims.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007409660/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-video-analysis.html

[Dill]

(10-29-2021, 12:44 PM)jj22 Wrote: What are we telling people who want to kill? Go seek trouble, start trouble, and kill and claim self defense.

The truth is self defense doesn't mean you can bringing a gun to a fist fight (protests) that you traveled to, shoot someone that you are now scared of, and after  claim self defense.

This goes back to my point about be careful what you support because you support the shooter. This law won't change until black people start following white teens and starting fights with them and then killing them as the white teen begins to get the better of them (ala Zimmerman). Or when black teens (or any minority teen) go to the next "Good People" Nazi protests and get's chased with those holding torches and turns and shoots a couple of them. It won't change until a black husband and wife comes out their house and points guns at a group of passing white students (who weren't even heading to their house but headed up the street to protest outside of someone else house) threatening them.

And there lies the problem with America and what  we've seen from the beginning. The only time the NRA for example supported gun laws was when black people thought the 2nd amendment was meant for them and tried to open carry. Things tend to not change until those oppressed start taking advantage of the laws that those who oppress use against them and have gotten away with in our legal system.

I think the bolded is one of the most interesting questions raised by this case. 

As is the question of how political viewpoints cant be built into law and then protected from scrutiny, in part by controlling what can count as legal fact/evidence and how "attackers" are defined.  

Who is "innocent until proven guilty"?  Remember the story of Marissa Alexander; a jury took all of 12 minutes to decide Florida's Stand-your-Ground law did not protect her for firing a warning shot into the ceiling of her home when her husband attacked her, and who was sentenced to 20 years in prison?  https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-overturns-20-year-sentence-woman-fired-warning/story?id=20387742

Seems like most people posting here share your perplexity regarding legal determinations of "self-defense" in this country.
Hence all the questions about the legality of R's behavior at various points.

[Dill]

(10-29-2021, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they aren't as this has been addressed, both here and elsewhere.  Anyone still bringing it up is engaging in the use of talking points to muddy the waters.

There's plenty of evidence addressing this, he got it from a friend who purchased it in Wisconsin.  Now, this raises strawman purchasing concerns, but that wouldn't apply to Rittenhouse, but the person who bought it.  It also has absolutely nothing to do with the crux of the case, which is the self defense argument.

Oh, so you're not discussing the subject of the thread other than as an indictment of our criminal justice system in general?  That wasn't clear, at all.  It's also not rather germane to the trial itself, hence my not assuming that was what you were doing.  I would be happy to actually discuss the substance of the case with you, if you are so inclined.

We SHOULD be discussing these self-defense cases as "an indictment of our criminal justice system in general."

So yes, that is what I am doing. And I don't regard this issue as somehow separate from "the trial itself; that separation is itself political and part of the problem.

"Strawman" purchasing concerns? I think people not schooled in law can be forgiven for wondering whether it makes a difference if
someone charged with a homicide used an weapon purchased and wielded outside the law.  

People can also be forgiven for wondering why and how a minor can bring a loaded weapon to a "riot" and then shoot people in "self-defense." 
How are "rioters" being distinguished from armed "patriots", whose vigilantism is tolerated or welcomed by police?

You said earlier that Rittenhouse did not carry his weapon across a state line. I'm wondering how you know this. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2021, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the bolded is one of the most interesting questions raised by this case. 

I would disagree. Making that claim works under the assumption that Rittenhouse was there with the intent to kill. Given his attempts to escape the situation, first, the likelihood of that is slim. Unless we see evidence presented in the trial that shows Rittenhouse was there with intent to do harm, that question isn't really being raised by anyone other than those that are trying to convict based on anything other than the actual evidence before us. That's not how the legal system works.

(10-30-2021, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: As is the question of how political viewpoints cant be built into law and then protected from scrutiny, in part by controlling what can count as legal fact/evidence and how "attackers" are defined.  

Who is "innocent until proven guilty"?  Remember the story of Marissa Alexander; a jury took all of 12 minutes to decide Florida's Stand-your-Ground law did not protect her for firing a warning shot into the ceiling of her home when her husband attacked her, and who was sentenced to 20 years in prison?  https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-overturns-20-year-sentence-woman-fired-warning/story?id=20387742

The problem with brining up cases from different states with very different circumstances is it comes of as trying to muddy the waters and deflect from the current topic. The Alexander situation was a result of a law in Florida that did not allow for warning shots. Warning shots are a controversial topic in self-defense/stand-your-ground discussions. They put bystanders at risk (that bullet is going to go somewhere and isn't going to stop until it hits something) and it can also be argued that if you feel confident enough to fire a warning shot to attempt to end a threat, then the threat may not have been great enough to warrant lethal force in the first place (not saying I agree with this, but it is an argument that has been made).

There was also some poor handling of the case that should never have happened, but the law was as it was. It was a bad law and, IIRC, it was changed because of this case.

(10-30-2021, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Seems like most people posting here share your perplexity regarding legal determinations of "self-defense" in this country.
Hence all the questions about the legality of R's behavior at various points.

That's because most people here aren't lawyers, haven't taken classes on these laws, or don't teach these sorts of laws to others. These aren't simple laws to understand. There is a reason that classes for concealed handgun permits are a good thing and they should focus on these laws in addition to safe and effective firearm handling. It should be a part of being a responsible gun owner and carrier and it's why I teach those classes.

[Dill]

(10-28-2021, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The first guy killed chased him with a plastic bag with maybe a beverage bottle in it. Scared for his life? I don't know. I find it to be a tough argument to suggest that he needed to turn around and shoot him point blank because of that. The second guy reacted to someone saying that this armed man just killed someone and then tried to apprehend him. Someone may respond "he had a gun too", but he also didn't use it. Funny how if he had shot first, he'd be the one arguing self defense because an armed person had just killed someone and then pointed a rifle at him as he tried to disarm him.

I've made my position clear. He chose to illegally arm himself and travel to a place with what appears to be the intent to engage somehow with the other side. He chose to kill a man who was chasing him with a bag and maybe a bottle after the guy had thrown the bag and kept running towards him. I just don't see the justification of lethal force. Since I view that as murder, I then don't see an argument for self defense when people tried to subdue him for killing a man.

Yes, the first guy was a mental patient, just released from the hospital. The plastic bag was the hospital "kit" he still had with him after release. (According to the link in my post above to HarleyDog.)

The bolded also highlights what is so problematic about the "self defense" defense of someone who brought a gun to a riot. OF COURSE its all the other guys who are "participants," not the wannabe policman and militia darling. 

Can ANYONE really open-carry a long gun during a riot--because WI is an open-carry state?  

Circle game?   R's intentions, worldview, violent fantasies--irrelevant to whose law?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-30-2021, 02:15 PM)Dill Wrote: We SHOULD be discussing these self-defense cases as "an indictment of our criminal justice system in general."

If you like, but is discussing self defense in general really the point of this thread?  Or is discussing the particulars of this precise case?  The thread title would strongly suggest the latter.

Quote:So yes, that is what I am doing. And I don't regard this issue as somehow separate from "the trial itself; that separation is itself political and part of the problem.

I'll reiterate the above.

Quote:"Strawman" purchasing concerns? I think people not schooled in law can be forgiven for wondering whether it makes a difference if
someone charged with a homicide used an weapon purchased and wielded outside the law.  

Wonder away.  How the gun was acquired has no bearing at all on the issue of self defense.  Even if Kyle had stolen the gun from a friend's house or purchased it via the black market, that has no bearing on the issue of self defense.  

Quote:People can also be forgiven for wondering why and how a minor can bring a loaded weapon to a "riot" and then shoot people in "self-defense."

 
It's not that complicated.  Open carry is legal in that state, so carrying the weapon at the "riot".  Btw why the quotes there?  Buildings were looted and burned, sounds like a riot to me.  As to self defense, if you're attacked you have the right to defend yourself.  As I stated in my second post, putting yourself in a dangerous situation is not illegal, nor does it grant others the right to assault you with impunity.

Quote:How are "rioters" being distinguished from armed "patriots", whose vigilantism is tolerated or welcomed by police?

It doesn't appear that complicated.  The ones starting fires are the rioters, and the ones putting them out are the "patriots" as you put it.

Quote:You said earlier that Rittenhouse did not carry his weapon across a state line. I'm wondering how you know this. 

Because it's been established that the friend purchased the gun in Wisconsin.  His friend has criminally charged because of it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/10/kyle-rittenhouse-friend-charged-bought-him-gun-kenosha-shooting/6231407002/

A simple Google search could have answered this question for you.

As to your position in general, I see a lot of "feels" and not a lot of facts.  A very simple, point by point, explanation of why this is a clear case of self defense has been provided.  Why have you made no attempt to address this?  If your position is that you don't care about the law and just want Kyle punished for not sharing your politics then just say so.

[GMDino]

(10-30-2021, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would disagree. Making that claim works under the assumption that Rittenhouse was there with the intent to kill. Given his attempts to escape the situation, first, the likelihood of that is slim. Unless we see evidence presented in the trial that shows Rittenhouse was there with intent to do harm, that question isn't really being raised by anyone other than those that are trying to convict based on anything other than the actual evidence before us. That's not how the legal system works.


The problem with brining up cases from different states with very different circumstances is it comes of as trying to muddy the waters and deflect from the current topic. The Alexander situation was a result of a law in Florida that did not allow for warning shots. Warning shots are a controversial topic in self-defense/stand-your-ground discussions. They put bystanders at risk (that bullet is going to go somewhere and isn't going to stop until it hits something) and it can also be argued that if you feel confident enough to fire a warning shot to attempt to end a threat, then the threat may not have been great enough to warrant lethal force in the first place (not saying I agree with this, but it is an argument that has been made).

There was also some poor handling of the case that should never have happened, but the law was as it was. It was a bad law and, IIRC, it was changed because of this case.


That's because most people here aren't lawyers, haven't taken classes on these laws, or don't teach these sorts of laws to others. These aren't simple laws to understand. There is a reason that classes for concealed handgun permits are a good thing and they should focus on these laws in addition to safe and effective firearm handling. It should be a part of being a responsible gun owner and carrier and it's why I teach those classes.

I'll always find it interesting that we live in a country where we have people that say you better shoot the person if you want to use a gun to defend yourself, to the point that NOT shooting them is considered more of a crime.  I understand a warning shot could go anywhere...so could a shot through an attacker.  But that's a different discussion.

Intent is the key to this case, I think, and I agree it will be next to impossible to prove that he went there to kill.

As a purely thought experiment / discussion we can talk about why he went there, armed, to protect businesses and property.  I said earlier maybe he thought his scary looking gun would make people leave...or maybe he thought he'd be willing to kill a stranger to protect a stranger.

Impossible to prove but interesting to discuss.

I'm sure his defense team will say he was armed to protect himself because he was entering a dangerous situation.  Perfectly legal I assume.  But the thought experiment/discussion can be about WHY he went to a dangerous situation as an unprepared, untrained minor.  One he could have easily avoided completely.

I agree we are not lawyers, and the one who was gets crapped on all the time anyway, but discussing the emotional/hypothetical aspects of the case can be entertaining and informative as long as we understand none of that will matter when the trial starts.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-29-2021, 12:44 PM)jj22 Wrote: fight them, chase them

I've avoided this thread like the plague until now because I think the kid's a bit of a shady shit and I don't trust his original motives, but I don't think legally speaking he is guilty of murder because there's no way to prove his motives.

Meanwhile even you who are trying to say he should be charged with murder just now literally describe the definition of a situation where you're allowed self defense, didn't you? If someone fights you, you try to run away and they try to chase you to keep attacking you, you've more than fulfilled the criteria needed for self defense.

[HarleyDog]

(10-30-2021, 03:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll always find it interesting that we live in a country where we have people that say you better shoot the person if you want to use a gun to defend yourself, to the point that NOT shooting them is considered more of a crime. 

I believe the phrase your looking for is “If your going to pull a weapon on someone, you better be ready to use it.” Much different than what your spouting. Keep your CNN narrative and blind yourself if you want to, that’s ok. You remind me of that female country singer who got cheated on by her boyfriend and now all she does is sing hateful songs about men. 1 person, or even a few, does not and has never represented all. Oh, and you also used the word defend.