George Floyd Protests

mace1229

mickeyrat said:

what is occuring is wannabes  are creating situations that result in a claim of self-defense.  in court this is successful as it focuses on that instant or moments prior which overlooks the fact the defendent created the situation in the first place.  it can be argued the dead or injured felt threatened and sought to defend themselves from an aggressor. given the results , generally, thats the truer scenario.

Are there other cases this is happening?
And if that is the tactic, it’s a very poor one that I don’t see being very successful. You have to agitate a crowd enough to make them want to seriously harm you, but then hope they don’t long enough to give you time to retreat and reestablish yourself as a non-threat and then hope they don’t stop and fight back after they continue to be a threat to you. Because if you just fight back while you’re the agitator, then that wouldn’t be self defense.
Ive seen mixed statements, but assuming Kyle was the original agitator, he still clearly retreated and reestablished himself as a non-threat. Just doesn’t seem like a plausible plot to use as an excuse to go out and shoot people.

Halifax2TheMax

facepollution said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Blame and hold “responsible” everyone and everything but Kyle Rittenhouse. What a fucking country.

You're talking about two different things here.  A jury acquitted under the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Rittenhouse is responsible for putting himself in a stupid situation.  The two 'victims' also acted like morons.  The third man that was shot admitted he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.  All of these people are stupid.  

And if Rittenhouse had just stayed home or not gone to Kenosha with an AR15 strapped across his chest, it wouldn’t even be discussed. He’s the only dipshit of all the armed folks that night that pulled the trigger when “threatened.”  It’s a stupid country we’re living in. FreeDUMB.

You're totally right in that he should have stayed at home, but I don't understand why you would put the word threatened in quote marks, he was clearly threatened, and could have been seriously injured or killed, hence the outcome.

There really are two different issues here, the moral conversation around a child vigilante inserting himself in a very volatile situation, and the right to defend oneself.  I'd imagine it would be a lot more constructive to focus on the laws and circumstances that allowed him to be in that environment in the first place, rather than putting all the blame on a stupid child who didn't know any better.  Through pushing the moral argument in spite of the very clear legal argument of self defence, all that is happening is that the opposing side are doubling down on their own narrow beliefs.  Nobody is giving Kyle Rittenhouse or would be Kyle Rittenhouse's the message that he may have been entitled to defend himself, but he shouldn't have been taking the law into his own hands.

He pointed his gun at people and was a threat by doing so. His having to run and then protect himself as a result is why I put “threatened” in quotation marks. Maybe if he hadn’t pointed his gun at people, two other folks would be alive and a third wouldn’t be missing a bicep?

brianlux

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

mrussel1

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

facepollution said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Blame and hold “responsible” everyone and everything but Kyle Rittenhouse. What a fucking country.

You're talking about two different things here.  A jury acquitted under the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Rittenhouse is responsible for putting himself in a stupid situation.  The two 'victims' also acted like morons.  The third man that was shot admitted he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.  All of these people are stupid.  

And if Rittenhouse had just stayed home or not gone to Kenosha with an AR15 strapped across his chest, it wouldn’t even be discussed. He’s the only dipshit of all the armed folks that night that pulled the trigger when “threatened.”  It’s a stupid country we’re living in. FreeDUMB.

You're totally right in that he should have stayed at home, but I don't understand why you would put the word threatened in quote marks, he was clearly threatened, and could have been seriously injured or killed, hence the outcome.

There really are two different issues here, the moral conversation around a child vigilante inserting himself in a very volatile situation, and the right to defend oneself.  I'd imagine it would be a lot more constructive to focus on the laws and circumstances that allowed him to be in that environment in the first place, rather than putting all the blame on a stupid child who didn't know any better.  Through pushing the moral argument in spite of the very clear legal argument of self defence, all that is happening is that the opposing side are doubling down on their own narrow beliefs.  Nobody is giving Kyle Rittenhouse or would be Kyle Rittenhouse's the message that he may have been entitled to defend himself, but he shouldn't have been taking the law into his own hands.

He pointed his gun at people and was a threat by doing so. His having to run and then protect himself as a result is why I put “threatened” in quotation marks. Maybe if he hadn’t pointed his gun at people, two other folks would be alive and a third wouldn’t be missing a bicep?

Who pointed first for the two dead? The man who was shot in the arm admitted he did first in his situation. 

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

facepollution said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Blame and hold “responsible” everyone and everything but Kyle Rittenhouse. What a fucking country.

You're talking about two different things here.  A jury acquitted under the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Rittenhouse is responsible for putting himself in a stupid situation.  The two 'victims' also acted like morons.  The third man that was shot admitted he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.  All of these people are stupid.  

And if Rittenhouse had just stayed home or not gone to Kenosha with an AR15 strapped across his chest, it wouldn’t even be discussed. He’s the only dipshit of all the armed folks that night that pulled the trigger when “threatened.”  It’s a stupid country we’re living in. FreeDUMB.

You're totally right in that he should have stayed at home, but I don't understand why you would put the word threatened in quote marks, he was clearly threatened, and could have been seriously injured or killed, hence the outcome.

There really are two different issues here, the moral conversation around a child vigilante inserting himself in a very volatile situation, and the right to defend oneself.  I'd imagine it would be a lot more constructive to focus on the laws and circumstances that allowed him to be in that environment in the first place, rather than putting all the blame on a stupid child who didn't know any better.  Through pushing the moral argument in spite of the very clear legal argument of self defence, all that is happening is that the opposing side are doubling down on their own narrow beliefs.  Nobody is giving Kyle Rittenhouse or would be Kyle Rittenhouse's the message that he may have been entitled to defend himself, but he shouldn't have been taking the law into his own hands.

He pointed his gun at people and was a threat by doing so. His having to run and then protect himself as a result is why I put “threatened” in quotation marks. Maybe if he hadn’t pointed his gun at people, two other folks would be alive and a third wouldn’t be missing a bicep?

Who pointed first for the two dead? The man who was shot in the arm admitted he did first in his situation. 

rosenbaum was first, wasnt he? unarmed, verbal altercation?

I'd  argue it was all one action with several parts. rather than seperate acts.

mace1229

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

facepollution said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Blame and hold “responsible” everyone and everything but Kyle Rittenhouse. What a fucking country.

You're talking about two different things here.  A jury acquitted under the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Rittenhouse is responsible for putting himself in a stupid situation.  The two 'victims' also acted like morons.  The third man that was shot admitted he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.  All of these people are stupid.  

And if Rittenhouse had just stayed home or not gone to Kenosha with an AR15 strapped across his chest, it wouldn’t even be discussed. He’s the only dipshit of all the armed folks that night that pulled the trigger when “threatened.”  It’s a stupid country we’re living in. FreeDUMB.

You're totally right in that he should have stayed at home, but I don't understand why you would put the word threatened in quote marks, he was clearly threatened, and could have been seriously injured or killed, hence the outcome.

There really are two different issues here, the moral conversation around a child vigilante inserting himself in a very volatile situation, and the right to defend oneself.  I'd imagine it would be a lot more constructive to focus on the laws and circumstances that allowed him to be in that environment in the first place, rather than putting all the blame on a stupid child who didn't know any better.  Through pushing the moral argument in spite of the very clear legal argument of self defence, all that is happening is that the opposing side are doubling down on their own narrow beliefs.  Nobody is giving Kyle Rittenhouse or would be Kyle Rittenhouse's the message that he may have been entitled to defend himself, but he shouldn't have been taking the law into his own hands.

He pointed his gun at people and was a threat by doing so. His having to run and then protect himself as a result is why I put “threatened” in quotation marks. Maybe if he hadn’t pointed his gun at people, two other folks would be alive and a third wouldn’t be missing a bicep?

Who pointed first for the two dead? The man who was shot in the arm admitted he did first in his situation. 

rosenbaum was first, wasnt he? unarmed, verbal altercation?

I'd  argue it was all one action with several parts. rather than seperate acts.

There’s definitely different parts. If Kyle pointed his gun at others first (I’ve seen varied sources, so I don’t know if he did or not) then there should be charges for that and those people have a right to defend themselves in that moment. That moment is gone when he turns and runs away and they chase and corner him. It was more than a verbal altercation. Rosenbaum chased him until he was just a few feet away. I’d be afraid of serious injury if some dude was chasing me like that. Kyle was not an imminent threat at that moment and they did not have a right to attack him.
Same goes for the second two. He was being chased down the street. He was not an imminent threat at that moment. When a he was struck in the head or having a gun pointed at him that’s self defense. Let’s say he missed the dude hitting him in the head with a skateboard and that guy runs away, he doesn’t have the right to chase him down and attack him.

facepollution

Halifax2TheMax said:

facepollution said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Blame and hold “responsible” everyone and everything but Kyle Rittenhouse. What a fucking country.

You're talking about two different things here.  A jury acquitted under the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Rittenhouse is responsible for putting himself in a stupid situation.  The two 'victims' also acted like morons.  The third man that was shot admitted he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.  All of these people are stupid.  

And if Rittenhouse had just stayed home or not gone to Kenosha with an AR15 strapped across his chest, it wouldn’t even be discussed. He’s the only dipshit of all the armed folks that night that pulled the trigger when “threatened.”  It’s a stupid country we’re living in. FreeDUMB.

You're totally right in that he should have stayed at home, but I don't understand why you would put the word threatened in quote marks, he was clearly threatened, and could have been seriously injured or killed, hence the outcome.

There really are two different issues here, the moral conversation around a child vigilante inserting himself in a very volatile situation, and the right to defend oneself.  I'd imagine it would be a lot more constructive to focus on the laws and circumstances that allowed him to be in that environment in the first place, rather than putting all the blame on a stupid child who didn't know any better.  Through pushing the moral argument in spite of the very clear legal argument of self defence, all that is happening is that the opposing side are doubling down on their own narrow beliefs.  Nobody is giving Kyle Rittenhouse or would be Kyle Rittenhouse's the message that he may have been entitled to defend himself, but he shouldn't have been taking the law into his own hands.

He pointed his gun at people and was a threat by doing so. His having to run and then protect himself as a result is why I put “threatened” in quotation marks. Maybe if he hadn’t pointed his gun at people, two other folks would be alive and a third wouldn’t be missing a bicep?

I don't know that it was established whether he was pointing his gun at people?  Regardless, he tried to de-escalate the incident that set off the chain of events when he ran away, maybe if Rosenbaum hadn't charged at him they'd also still all be alive?  Rosenbaum, who was clearly there just to revel in the chaos and violence - he was clearly no ally to the cause either, caught on camera shouting the 'N' word.  Again, I'm not saying Rittenhouse should have been there, with a gun, but legally, it seems he was allowed to be.   

Out of My Mind and Time

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

Ding ding ding. +1

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

There ya go!  People for some reason have forgotten this.  

However I ve seen a lot of people on the left (Facebook posts) saying that the judge paid off the jury.    The extreme left and right are nuts.  

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....

Out of My Mind and Time

No. Tell me what did the judge hide?

Then we can get into all the shit the prosecutors tried. And media mob. And jury intimidation.  

Hobbes

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....

ding ding ding. +1

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....

Always a conspiracy. 

What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

Same question, but with the OJ murder trial.

nicknyr15

The fallout from this case is disturbing. The left with their conspiracy theories. The right holding up this kid like he’s some sort of hero. The protestors protesting….. I don’t even know. A hypothetical? That if he was a POC he’s be guilty? It’s amazing how people cannot view this case without their political bias shining through. 

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....

Always a conspiracy. 

What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?

Not allowing the jury to consider the least serious charge that he could have been convicted upon, under age possession of a firearm, and allowing the merits and intent of the law to be heard on appeal.

Out of My Mind and Time

Try again. 

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....

Always a conspiracy. 

What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?

Not allowing the jury to consider the least serious charge that he could have been convicted upon, under age possession of a firearm, and allowing the merits and intent of the law to be heard on appeal.

Really?  You're upset about the weapons charge?  Sorry, that's a nothing charge here.  He would not have received a moments jail time.  

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer.  Jeez Louise, where am I?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

Same question, but with the OJ murder trial.

You have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  He was found culpable in civil court based on the preponderance of the evidence.  The families can always file a civil suit here as well.  

Do I think OJ killed them?  Yes.  But that's not the legal standard.  

Do I think Kyle went spoiling for a firefight?  Yes.