George Floyd Protests

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Rittenhouse (autocorrect corrects it to Rotten House, makes me chuckle) raised his gun and pointed it at protesters, prior to Rosenbaum charging at him. That's a threat with a deadly weapon. What was Rosenbaum's threat? Being verbally abusive. Same-same? No, not even close. What have we all been told to do in an active, or potential active, shooter situation? Flee, hide or fight. What did Rosenbaum do? He chose to fight (try outrunning an AR15). Rittenhouse was an imminent threat. Rosenbaum decided to defend himself.

Rittenhouse wasn't old enough to possess the AR15. Its been argued ad-nauseam on these boards that illegal immigrants break the law the moment they cross the border illegally and as such are criminals and should be deported. Rittenhouse broke the law by being in possession of a firearm while underage. What right did he have to be present in illegal possession of a firearm? As opposed to Rosenbaum (regardless of his criminal history)? And, at the time he was threatened with imminent death, wasn't breaking the law, just exercising his freedom of speech? Particularly, in light of:

According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests.

19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse (nbcnews.com)

Wonder how all the repub constitutionalists on here feel about "interpretation" of the law by the judge and going against what the legislature intended?

Judge dismisses gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse - Chicago Tribune

Lots of confusion and potential for different interpretation when you take into account that Wisconsin law allows for more stringent federal regulation to govern. But that seemingly went "poof" with the judge's dropping of the charge. I don't know if Rittenhouse can face federal civil rights or criminal charges.

WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

But for a judge's ruling on a loophole and not allowing the charge to be considered by the jury and Rittenhouse to appeal, he won the White Privilege Lottery. Rittenhouse knew he wasn't old enough to possess the AR15 as evidenced by his friend's, who bought it for him, testimony. The judge could have very easily allowed the charge to be considered. And you can't tell me that Rittenhouse found the loophole in the law and knew he could get away with being in illegal possession of a firearm if he were caught.

Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Dominick Black, teen's friend, takes the stand (usatoday.com)

You don't have the right to instigate a confrontation that can potentially put your life or safety at risk, pointing a firearm, Rittenhouse, at someone who is not a current threat, protesters/Rosenbaum, and then claim self-defense when you indeed become threatened by the victim(s) of your instigation.

I highlighted that above statement because it's a misrepresentation of the active shooter response model. You only fight as a last resort, if cornered and unable to escape. If the guy with a gun is running away from you, don't run after him. That's just dumb. Anyway, just wanted to comment on that since I train our college in active shooter response and I would never tell anyone to chase the guy with a gun. Not your safest option.

Some people might choose to run after a perceived threat of an active shooter to prevent a perceived active shooter from having multiple victims. Not dumb at all. And why did Rittenhouse fire three more shots after the first disabling shot? Another “responsible” gun possessor who knew the capability of his weapon and exercised “responsible” usage. Why did Rosenbaum chase him? We’ll never know because he’s dead, because of Rittenhouse’s ir”responsible” actions and conduct. 

He fired 3 because it happened so quickly.  I mentioned that earlier that the prosecutor slowed it down and discussed that for 3 minutes where it happened in less than one second.  That is why he fired 3 shots.

That’s an excuse and doesn’t absolve him of his “responsibility.” Each shot required an individual pull of the trigger. And the “threat” was neutralized after the first shot, the kill shot, the last, was unnecessary and reckless.

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Rittenhouse (autocorrect corrects it to Rotten House, makes me chuckle) raised his gun and pointed it at protesters, prior to Rosenbaum charging at him. That's a threat with a deadly weapon. What was Rosenbaum's threat? Being verbally abusive. Same-same? No, not even close. What have we all been told to do in an active, or potential active, shooter situation? Flee, hide or fight. What did Rosenbaum do? He chose to fight (try outrunning an AR15). Rittenhouse was an imminent threat. Rosenbaum decided to defend himself.

Rittenhouse wasn't old enough to possess the AR15. Its been argued ad-nauseam on these boards that illegal immigrants break the law the moment they cross the border illegally and as such are criminals and should be deported. Rittenhouse broke the law by being in possession of a firearm while underage. What right did he have to be present in illegal possession of a firearm? As opposed to Rosenbaum (regardless of his criminal history)? And, at the time he was threatened with imminent death, wasn't breaking the law, just exercising his freedom of speech? Particularly, in light of:

According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests.

19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse (nbcnews.com)

Wonder how all the repub constitutionalists on here feel about "interpretation" of the law by the judge and going against what the legislature intended?

Judge dismisses gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse - Chicago Tribune

Lots of confusion and potential for different interpretation when you take into account that Wisconsin law allows for more stringent federal regulation to govern. But that seemingly went "poof" with the judge's dropping of the charge. I don't know if Rittenhouse can face federal civil rights or criminal charges.

WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

But for a judge's ruling on a loophole and not allowing the charge to be considered by the jury and Rittenhouse to appeal, he won the White Privilege Lottery. Rittenhouse knew he wasn't old enough to possess the AR15 as evidenced by his friend's, who bought it for him, testimony. The judge could have very easily allowed the charge to be considered. And you can't tell me that Rittenhouse found the loophole in the law and knew he could get away with being in illegal possession of a firearm if he were caught.

Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Dominick Black, teen's friend, takes the stand (usatoday.com)

You don't have the right to instigate a confrontation that can potentially put your life or safety at risk, pointing a firearm, Rittenhouse, at someone who is not a current threat, protesters/Rosenbaum, and then claim self-defense when you indeed become threatened by the victim(s) of your instigation.

I highlighted that above statement because it's a misrepresentation of the active shooter response model. You only fight as a last resort, if cornered and unable to escape. If the guy with a gun is running away from you, don't run after him. That's just dumb. Anyway, just wanted to comment on that since I train our college in active shooter response and I would never tell anyone to chase the guy with a gun. Not your safest option.

Some people might choose to run after a perceived threat of an active shooter to prevent a perceived active shooter from having multiple victims. Not dumb at all. And why did Rittenhouse fire three more shots after the first disabling shot? Another “responsible” gun possessor who knew the capability of his weapon and exercised “responsible” usage. Why did Rosenbaum chase him? We’ll never know because he’s dead, because of Rittenhouse’s ir”responsible” actions and conduct. 

He fired 3 because it happened so quickly.  I mentioned that earlier that the prosecutor slowed it down and discussed that for 3 minutes where it happened in less than one second.  That is why he fired 3 shots.

That’s an excuse and doesn’t absolve him of his “responsibility.” Each shot required an individual pull of the trigger. And the “threat” was neutralized after the first shot, the kill shot, the last, was unnecessary and reckless.

He had no idea if the first shot was good enough or not.  Why would you even argue this?  it's moot.  

Because it stopped the threat, making it drop to the ground. Maybe Rittenhouse should have learned threat assessment, fire control and discipline with a firearm before he decided to be a cop? Or was it medic? Or fireman? Or tough guy?

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Rittenhouse (autocorrect corrects it to Rotten House, makes me chuckle) raised his gun and pointed it at protesters, prior to Rosenbaum charging at him. That's a threat with a deadly weapon. What was Rosenbaum's threat? Being verbally abusive. Same-same? No, not even close. What have we all been told to do in an active, or potential active, shooter situation? Flee, hide or fight. What did Rosenbaum do? He chose to fight (try outrunning an AR15). Rittenhouse was an imminent threat. Rosenbaum decided to defend himself.

Rittenhouse wasn't old enough to possess the AR15. Its been argued ad-nauseam on these boards that illegal immigrants break the law the moment they cross the border illegally and as such are criminals and should be deported. Rittenhouse broke the law by being in possession of a firearm while underage. What right did he have to be present in illegal possession of a firearm? As opposed to Rosenbaum (regardless of his criminal history)? And, at the time he was threatened with imminent death, wasn't breaking the law, just exercising his freedom of speech? Particularly, in light of:

According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests.

19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse (nbcnews.com)

Wonder how all the repub constitutionalists on here feel about "interpretation" of the law by the judge and going against what the legislature intended?

Judge dismisses gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse - Chicago Tribune

Lots of confusion and potential for different interpretation when you take into account that Wisconsin law allows for more stringent federal regulation to govern. But that seemingly went "poof" with the judge's dropping of the charge. I don't know if Rittenhouse can face federal civil rights or criminal charges.

WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

But for a judge's ruling on a loophole and not allowing the charge to be considered by the jury and Rittenhouse to appeal, he won the White Privilege Lottery. Rittenhouse knew he wasn't old enough to possess the AR15 as evidenced by his friend's, who bought it for him, testimony. The judge could have very easily allowed the charge to be considered. And you can't tell me that Rittenhouse found the loophole in the law and knew he could get away with being in illegal possession of a firearm if he were caught.

Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Dominick Black, teen's friend, takes the stand (usatoday.com)

You don't have the right to instigate a confrontation that can potentially put your life or safety at risk, pointing a firearm, Rittenhouse, at someone who is not a current threat, protesters/Rosenbaum, and then claim self-defense when you indeed become threatened by the victim(s) of your instigation.

I highlighted that above statement because it's a misrepresentation of the active shooter response model. You only fight as a last resort, if cornered and unable to escape. If the guy with a gun is running away from you, don't run after him. That's just dumb. Anyway, just wanted to comment on that since I train our college in active shooter response and I would never tell anyone to chase the guy with a gun. Not your safest option.

Some people might choose to run after a perceived threat of an active shooter to prevent a perceived active shooter from having multiple victims. Not dumb at all. And why did Rittenhouse fire three more shots after the first disabling shot? Another “responsible” gun possessor who knew the capability of his weapon and exercised “responsible” usage. Why did Rosenbaum chase him? We’ll never know because he’s dead, because of Rittenhouse’s ir”responsible” actions and conduct. 

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Rittenhouse (autocorrect corrects it to Rotten House, makes me chuckle) raised his gun and pointed it at protesters, prior to Rosenbaum charging at him. That's a threat with a deadly weapon. What was Rosenbaum's threat? Being verbally abusive. Same-same? No, not even close. What have we all been told to do in an active, or potential active, shooter situation? Flee, hide or fight. What did Rosenbaum do? He chose to fight (try outrunning an AR15). Rittenhouse was an imminent threat. Rosenbaum decided to defend himself.

Rittenhouse wasn't old enough to possess the AR15. Its been argued ad-nauseam on these boards that illegal immigrants break the law the moment they cross the border illegally and as such are criminals and should be deported. Rittenhouse broke the law by being in possession of a firearm while underage. What right did he have to be present in illegal possession of a firearm? As opposed to Rosenbaum (regardless of his criminal history)? And, at the time he was threatened with imminent death, wasn't breaking the law, just exercising his freedom of speech? Particularly, in light of:

According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests.

19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse (nbcnews.com)

Wonder how all the repub constitutionalists on here feel about "interpretation" of the law by the judge and going against what the legislature intended?

Judge dismisses gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse - Chicago Tribune

Lots of confusion and potential for different interpretation when you take into account that Wisconsin law allows for more stringent federal regulation to govern. But that seemingly went "poof" with the judge's dropping of the charge. I don't know if Rittenhouse can face federal civil rights or criminal charges.

WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

But for a judge's ruling on a loophole and not allowing the charge to be considered by the jury and Rittenhouse to appeal, he won the White Privilege Lottery. Rittenhouse knew he wasn't old enough to possess the AR15 as evidenced by his friend's, who bought it for him, testimony. The judge could have very easily allowed the charge to be considered. And you can't tell me that Rittenhouse found the loophole in the law and knew he could get away with being in illegal possession of a firearm if he were caught.

Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Dominick Black, teen's friend, takes the stand (usatoday.com)

You don't have the right to instigate a confrontation that can potentially put your life or safety at risk, pointing a firearm, Rittenhouse, at someone who is not a current threat, protesters/Rosenbaum, and then claim self-defense when you indeed become threatened by the victim(s) of your instigation.

I highlighted that above statement because it's a misrepresentation of the active shooter response model. You only fight as a last resort, if cornered and unable to escape. If the guy with a gun is running away from you, don't run after him. That's just dumb. Anyway, just wanted to comment on that since I train our college in active shooter response and I would never tell anyone to chase the guy with a gun. Not your safest option.

Some people might choose to run after a perceived threat of an active shooter to prevent a perceived active shooter from having multiple victims. Not dumb at all. And why did Rittenhouse fire three more shots after the first disabling shot? Another “responsible” gun possessor who knew the capability of his weapon and exercised “responsible” usage. Why did Rosenbaum chase him? We’ll never know because he’s dead, because of Rittenhouse’s ir”responsible” actions and conduct. 

He fired 3 because it happened so quickly.  I mentioned that earlier that the prosecutor slowed it down and discussed that for 3 minutes where it happened in less than one second.  That is why he fired 3 shots.

That’s an excuse and doesn’t absolve him of his “responsibility.” Each shot required an individual pull of the trigger. And the “threat” was neutralized after the first shot, the kill shot, the last, was unnecessary and reckless.

He had no idea if the first shot was good enough or not.  Why would you even argue this?  it's moot.  

Because it stopped the threat, making it drop to the ground. Maybe Rittenhouse should have learned threat assessment, fire control and discipline with a firearm before he decided to be a cop? Or was it medic? Or fireman? Or tough guy?

Well, I'd argue no one is going to take one shot and reassess unless they're a long distance sniper or hunting game. I know Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there, but it's common knowledge you shoot to stop the threat and that means at least 2 shots if you're trained at all. If someone is coming at you, you're going to fire more than one shot.

cblock4life said:

mace1229 said:

cblock4life said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i have a feeling this ends in a hung jury. 

it has been too politicized and people's opinions are too deeply entrenched for 12 people to be objective about it.

very possible...I can't imagine all 12 agreeing to even reckless endangerment

If thats the case, is the whole trial a hung jury, or just the charges they don't agree on?

i believe they can be hung on some charges and they can convict or acquit on others.

the problem is if the jury hangs on all of them he cannot be tried again.

I have a question, why can’t they retry him?  I thought double jeopardy only applied if they acquitted him?  If it’s hung on first degree, 2nd, you know the murder charges, they can’t retry? This is all so confusing!  

I always thought they can retry him on any charges that are not unanimous not guilty. 

Thanks for responding….no one else responded so I looked it up and somewhere below in all the gibberish it should say if a mistrial enforces double jeopardy like an acquittal. From what I’ve read so far I’m going to guess that he can be retried unless they find him not guilty.

 https://law.justia.com/constitution/wisconsin/article-i/section-8/

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JB16057 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JB16057 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger?

Rosenbaum was verbally threatening to kill Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum lunged after Rittenhouse's gun to do just that. Rosenbaum was a threat to Rittenhouse(and the rest of the world I might add). I feel bad for the last 2 that were shot because maybe they did just assume they were trying to disarm a shooter but none of them should've been there in the first place.

rosenbaum was a threat to the rest of the world?

ok i am done here.

Do you always defend sexual predators that anally rape 5 boys aged 9-11? https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=172556

I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for sexual predators.

do you always radically over dramatize situations like this? obviously gimme wasn't defending him. saying he was a threat to 7 billion people is ludicrous. 

Like I said, I have no respect for sexual predators.

Rosenbaum was obviously a danger to society and I'm glad there's one less pedophile in the world.

Edit: and for the record, Gimme was defending Rosenbaum.

electronically rolling his eyes on your claim that rosenbaum was a threat to 7 billion people is defending him?

that's quite a leap ya got there. you should play basketball. 

Instead of arguing the point that what Rittenhouse did was in self defense, gimme ran away because I said Rosenbaum was a threat to the world. I was not referring to each of the 7 billion people but seeing that this guy had no boundaries, he could've done bad things to anyone in the world.

he didn't run away. he's just been around here long enough to know when there's absolutely no point after a certain type of post. 

thank you. this was more eloquent than i was initially going to write.

nobody in the world is a threat to 7 billion people at the same time. the minute i saw that claim made i was done.

Except for Donald Trump right?