[Lord Dave]

I think we can all agree the takeaway is this: pretend cops and real cops can kill anyone so long as they feel threatened.  Especially when that threat comes from antagonizing people who are already angry as hell at something.

So basically: next time a Jan 6 type protest happens, grab your gun and head down, its open season.

I encourage you to come back and participate.

Please.

Of course.
I'm white so I can kill as many conservative traitors as I want and claim self defense.
I mean 'it was a mob!  I was afraid for my life while wanting to defend our nation's capital as a private citizen.  I had no choice but to fire all 100 rounds I had with me.

Fantastic! Pleased to see such a high level of commitment in writing. Maybe I'll see you there!

Of course!  Who wouldn't defend themselves from a violent mob?  Like a woman climbing through a window to bypass a barricade.

[Action80]

They got exactly what they had coming to them.

Well of course. They live in America. That sorry episode is evidence of what the country is devolving to

Sucks to live in America right now. Once the greatest nation now no better than the lawless jungles of Central America or Africa. Fantastic

If only we could get a President to make America great again. Oh well

Actually, more people are still clamoring to make America their home than any other place on the flat earth plane, especially that current prison colony out in the ocean you call home.

What happened in Kenosha is a prime example of what happens to people who think and act like idiot Australians and try to propagate that shit line of thinking here in the US.

Romanticing about when America really was great and filled with opportunity. But those days are over. A bitterly polarised oligarch society where you rank very low among the OECD in terms of education. Of course your political parties want you to remain dimwitted - it's the only way they won't be held accountable for their lies because the populous is unable to think critically. Not that it matters to migrants that you literally depend on to take in to get anything that requires intelligence done. America would be rack and ruin already if not for your H-1B visa system lol

This saga with Kyle and those he killed is just the start. Your society is spiralling the shitter. These events will only become more common place and more hostile. God bless America lololol. If God existed its safe to say he gave up giving a damn about you guys.

Kyle being innocent or guilty was never the point. The point is your society and lifestyle fosters this shit to happen in the first place. There's a reason no one was really shocked it happened.

Who gives a rat's ass about what some fascist website thinks about the US?

Answer = people who like to promulgate fascism.

[stack]

So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.

It will be interesting to see how this nets out.

Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard

When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.

But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.

There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.

Apparently, you are wrong again regarding a minor possessing a specific type of firearm in Wisconsin:

Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped
According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.

Not to mention it's a misdemeanor charge, so whatever.

Apparently, the word rifle escapes you. Apparently,  you don't know the barrel length of an AR-15.

Apparently you don't understand sentence structure:
"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"
"or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle"
"or short-barreled shotgun"
"or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

"Or" not "and".

"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"

An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.[/i]

"The AR-15 is the most popular self-loading rifle in the country."
https://www.everydaymarksman.co/equipment/buying-your-first-ar-15/

See: "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle" - No barrel length designation required.

[Action80]

So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.

It will be interesting to see how this nets out.

Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard

When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.

But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.

There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.

Apparently, you are wrong again regarding a minor possessing a specific type of firearm in Wisconsin:

Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped
According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.

Not to mention it's a misdemeanor charge, so whatever.

Apparently, the word rifle escapes you. Apparently,  you don't know the barrel length of an AR-15.

Apparently you don't understand sentence structure:
"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"
"or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle"
"or short-barreled shotgun"
"or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

"Or" not "and".

"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"

An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.[/i]

"The AR-15 is the most popular self-loading rifle in the country."
https://www.everydaymarksman.co/equipment/buying-your-first-ar-15/

See: "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle" - No barrel length designation required.

Nice try.

A short barreled rifle doesn't refer to a shotgun.

Take some more language courses then get back to us.

[stack]

So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.

It will be interesting to see how this nets out.

Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard

When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.

But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.

There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.

Apparently, you are wrong again regarding a minor possessing a specific type of firearm in Wisconsin:

Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped
According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.

Not to mention it's a misdemeanor charge, so whatever.

Apparently, the word rifle escapes you. Apparently,  you don't know the barrel length of an AR-15.

Apparently you don't understand sentence structure:
"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"
"or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle"
"or short-barreled shotgun"
"or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

"Or" not "and".

"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"

An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.[/i]

"The AR-15 is the most popular self-loading rifle in the country."
https://www.everydaymarksman.co/equipment/buying-your-first-ar-15/

See: "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle" - No barrel length designation required.

Nice try.

A short barreled rifle doesn't refer to a shotgun.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Underage with rifle = misdemeanor, period.

What’s your problem? If he gets convicted of the count of underage with a rifle, so what? It’s a parking ticket. The judge refuses to throw it out. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges.

[Rushy]

My dudes, did you know you can remove quotes from a quoted reply so that you don't have a quote tree taking up 90% of everyone's screen space?

Please see: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5485.0

[Rama Set]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial

It’s like they sought out the most incompetent prosecutor possible lol

[crutonius]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial

It’s like they sought out the most incompetent prosecutor possible lol

I don't know.  The lawyers in a trial have a job to do.  They've got to work with what they have.  If they have basically nothing then they end up doing some rather embarrassing things.

It's like the Derek Chauvin trial where the defense tried to make the case that George Floyd could have died from carbon monoxide poisoning from the cop car in an outside environment where no one can say if that car was even running at the time.

[Rama Set]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial

It’s like they sought out the most incompetent prosecutor possible lol

I don't know.  The lawyers in a trial have a job to do.  They've got to work with what they have.  If they have basically nothing then they end up doing some rather embarrassing things.

It's like the Derek Chauvin trial where the defense tried to make the case that George Floyd could have died from carbon monoxide poisoning from the cop car in an outside environment where no one can say if that car was even running at the time.

That’s bull shit. The defense has a duty to their client to zealously defend them whereas the prosecution can drop the charges. No one is forcing the prosecutor to try and violate the defendants constitutional rights. No one is forcing them to call witnesses that corroborate the defenses story.

[Rushy]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial

It’s like they sought out the most incompetent prosecutor possible lol

In my very objective and unique opinion, the prosecutor was somehow coerced into going through with prosecuting a case he almost certainly knew wouldn't win.

[Roundy]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wisconsin-so-vigilantism-n1283383

I'll admit that the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me uncomfortable, largely because based on the video evidence I don't see how the actual violence that took place couldn't be considered self-defense. On the other hand, he was specifically and expressly going to the event to act as a vigilante. His intent in that regard is quite clear. And that action directly led to the deaths of three people. Is it really just if he gets off scot free?

I still think the real villains are the cops who chatted up an apparent minor carrying around a deadly weapon without questioning it. The fact that they welcomed his presence and the presence of others acting as vigilantes is troubling and should be considered negligent.

[Pongo]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wisconsin-so-vigilantism-n1283383

I'll admit that the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me uncomfortable, largely because based on the video evidence I don't see how the actual violence that took place couldn't be considered self-defense. On the other hand, he was specifically and expressly going to the event to act as a vigilante. His intent in that regard is quite clear. And that action directly led to the deaths of three people. Is it really just if he gets off scot free?

I still think the real villains are the cops who chatted up an apparent minor carrying around a deadly weapon without questioning it. The fact that they welcomed his presence and the presence of others acting as vigilantes is troubling and should be considered negligent.

I think that the issue is that it falls in that grey area between accountability and justice. Accountability would be Rittenhouse receiving some sort of punishment for his actions. However, we don't dispense justice like that, we base justice on if laws were broken. And most of the time these two align fairly well. Cases like this don't sit well because Rittenhouse's actions directly lead to the deaths of people. Will there be accountability for theses actions? Maybe! The courts will see if any laws were broken and sentence accordingly.

It's much like the Breonna Taylor situation. Do you know why almost all the cops got off without penalty from the massively bungled operation? It's because it was deemed that they didn't break any laws. With the exclusion of the one officer that shot wildly through Taylor's apartment and into the next. No-knock warrants were legal. Trying to apprehend a suspect while said suspect is already in custody? Not illegal. Returning fire on a civilian is also completely legal for an officer in the line of duty. Firing blindly into an adjacent apartment though? Totally illegal and we can be thankful that the national attention will ensure a trial.

We feel like there should be accountability for these underprepared officers whose neglectful actions lead to the death of an innocent woman, but instead we get the cold, unwieldy gavel of justice bludgeoning its way though our legal system the best it can.

[Rushy]

On the other hand, he was specifically and expressly going to the event to act as a vigilante. His intent in that regard is quite clear. And that action directly led to the deaths of three people. Is it really just if he gets off scot free?

He wasn't specifically or expressly doing either of those things. That's your own speculation on the subject fed to you by other people speculating on the subject. That sort of speculation is nonsense, which is why very coincidentally, it wasn't presented in court.

I still think the real villains are the cops who chatted up an apparent minor carrying around a deadly weapon without questioning it. The fact that they welcomed his presence and the presence of others acting as vigilantes is troubling and should be considered negligent.

Why would a cop question a person open carrying in a state where such a thing is completely legal? You could argue that the cop should have asked Rittenhouse for his ID, but other than that, there's nothing inherently wrong with carrying a "deadly weapon" out in the open.

Accountability would be Rittenhouse receiving some sort of punishment for his actions.

Accountable for what actions, exactly? We must be watching two different videos, because as I see it, Rittenhouse did absolutely nothing wrong. He fulfilled his duty to flee. He only shot people who physically assaulted him or pointed a gun at him. Here's an idea: don't assault or threaten people with guns, you will get shot.

Famous last words of child rapist Rosenbaum before he died: "shoot me, nigga!" He wasn't black, by the way. So Rittenhouse killed a racist rapist that was attacking him. How sad, how horrible, society is so much worse off because of this. Where's the justice? lmao.

It's much like the Breonna Taylor situation.

No, it isn't, lmao. Breonna Taylor didn't get shot after attacking other people.

[Pongo]

Accountable for what actions, exactly? We must be watching two different videos, because as I see it, Rittenhouse did absolutely nothing wrong. He fulfilled his duty to flee. He only shot people who physically assaulted him or pointed a gun at him. Here's an idea: don't assault or threaten people with guns, you will get shot.

Famous last words of child rapist Rosenbaum before he died: "shoot me, nigga!" He wasn't black, by the way. So Rittenhouse killed a racist rapist that was attacking him. How sad, how horrible, society is so much worse off because of this. Where's the justice? lmao.

It's much like the Breonna Taylor situation.

No, it isn't, lmao. Breonna Taylor didn't get shot after attacking other people.

idk, I just opine about things on the internet. Sometimes I make shit up and sometimes I parrot whatever NPR says and pray it looks like my own original viewpoint.

[crutonius]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wisconsin-so-vigilantism-n1283383

I'll admit that the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me uncomfortable, largely because based on the video evidence I don't see how the actual violence that took place couldn't be considered self-defense. On the other hand, he was specifically and expressly going to the event to act as a vigilante. His intent in that regard is quite clear. And that action directly led to the deaths of three people. Is it really just if he gets off scot free?

I still think the real villains are the cops who chatted up an apparent minor carrying around a deadly weapon without questioning it. The fact that they welcomed his presence and the presence of others acting as vigilantes is troubling and should be considered negligent.

I understand that.  It has parallels to the Derek Chauvin case.  A lot of people were outraged at the verdict because they really liked cops.

I'm not uncomfortable with the likely outcome though.  I'm actually really glad that in situations of life and death our system of justice actually appeared to work like it should.

[honk]

Famous last words of child rapist Rosenbaum before he died: "shoot me, nigga!" He wasn't black, by the way. So Rittenhouse killed a racist rapist that was attacking him. How sad, how horrible, society is so much worse off because of this. Where's the justice? lmao.

You know that none of this is relevant to the case at hand. Rosenbaum clearly wasn't trying to rape anyone or commit a hate crime. Murder trials are not settled on the question of "but was the victim a good person tho."

[juner]

"but was the victim a good person tho."

What victim?

[Rushy]

Famous last words of child rapist Rosenbaum before he died: "shoot me, nigga!" He wasn't black, by the way. So Rittenhouse killed a racist rapist that was attacking him. How sad, how horrible, society is so much worse off because of this. Where's the justice? lmao.

You know that none of this is relevant to the case at hand. Rosenbaum clearly wasn't trying to rape anyone or commit a hate crime. Murder trials are not settled on the question of "but was the victim a good person tho."

Of course it's relevant. There's a very good reason why character witnesses are so often used in court: the jury's feelings about people differ. Rosenbaum was a deranged child rapist and is more likely to try to assault someone he deems weak enough to do so. However, he realized that raping people with guns is a lot tougher to do and died while contemplating his newfound life lesson.

I'm glad he's dead. He deserved it and the man who killed him deserves to walk free.

[Rama Set]

You hating a rapist is not the same as it being relevant to a self-defense argument where the shooter had no idea they shot a rapist.

[Rushy]

You hating a rapist is not the same as it being relevant to a self-defense argument where the shooter had no idea they shot a rapist.

The fact that he was a rapist (five times, even) constitutes a certain behavior pattern. It makes the idea that Rosenbaum wasn't an aggressive lunatic far tougher to believe and therefore makes self-defense that much more likely.

A person's background sets the tone for their character.