The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on November 16, 2021, 04:45:02 PM
-
Star Member WarGamer (2,951 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216053813
If/When Rittenhouse walks... it's because the Jury finds no LAW was broken in WI..
Laws can be changed.
If Rittenhouse did the SAME thing in NY, he might be spending Life in prison.
(Silly example) If the law states that 3.5 grams of rat poop is allowed per metric ton of grain meant for human consumption, it doesn't mean rat poop is good! What is right or wrong doesn't always meet up with what's LEGAL.
Unfortunately the focus will be on the Judge or the Jurors or the media... State legislatures can change their self-defense laws TOMORROW if they want.
When they should be looking at the LAW.
:whatever:
onecaliberal (21,445 posts)
1. Killing someone is illegal.
Abortion. :whistling:
Star Member WarGamer (2,951 posts)
3. If you would have said "Killing someone is wrong..." that'd be a better claim.
But every single State in the US DOES cut out certain situations where killing someone is NOT illegal.
i.e. Self-defence
onecaliberal (21,445 posts)
30. I hear you and should have clarified. For this instance.
The people killed by that evil piece of shit with a gun (1)were not threatening him.
The killer crossed state lines (2)with a gun for a reason. He has (3)zero business there. Zero.
(1) Yes they were.
(2) Doesn't need a reason.
(3) Doesn't matter.
ForgedCrank (131 posts)
35. I'm not sure how this misinformation keeps spreading.
1) Rittenhouse did not bring a gun across state lines
2) "not being threatened" is a matter of perspective, and the facts show otherwise (see below)
3) yes, he did have "business there" (again, see below)
I'm not TRYING to be contrary, and I don't disagree on the mood of the subject. 2 people are dead because he wanted to play cowboy, and that is absolutely disgusting. But, we should argue facts, not false information, that does us no good.
Many of us live in either a rural area, or small town, and "our community" can span a 30 mile radius as a result, just like Rittenhouse. Most of Rittenhouse family lives in Kenosha, which is about 15 minutes away from where he lives, so he had good reasons to be there. The rifle in question was purchased and stored in IL, undisputed facts.
I've heard SO much incorrect information about this case, it's kindof making my head swirl.
However, even though he had every right to be in Kenosha, and every good reason, that's not at all why he was there on this particular night. He was there to insert himself into a a very unstable and dangerous environment as opposition, and he brought a gun when he did it. If he didn't think it was dangerous, he wouldn't have brought a gun.
If he DID think it was dangerous, he should have stayed home and watched cartoons or polished his Trump hats or something. I think his response was disproportional in all but one case (guy with the pistol pointed at him who got his arm shot up). I see one case of actual self-defense, and 2 cases of something lesser, whatever that is. You don't respond to a swinging skateboard with a gunfire, you don't respond to someone chasing you and throwing a plastic bag at you with gunfire. If someone is pointing a pistol at you, THAT justifies pulling the trigger (shot in the arm guy who didn't get killed).
I'm not sure under WI law what he can be guilty of, but I don't believe it's murder. I don't know how they define all the sub-sets there.
And yes, I believe he carries the weight of some responsibility here, a lot of it in fact. There would be no dead people had he just stayed home that night.
Star Member Mr.Bill (14,292 posts)
56. I agree with you about passing laws
tailored to specific events.
But let's face it, although it won't be said in court, if Kyle Rittenhouse was black, cops would have emptied their magazines into him that night. That's the larger problem.
That's not what the trial is about.
Star Member Hoyt (51,136 posts)
2. Not sure, but bet if Rittenhouse walked down a NY street with a rifle dangling from his neck during a protest, police would not have ignored it like Wisconsin, where it's legal to strut down the street with a rifle dangling from you neck.
:whatever:
Star Member jcgoldie (8,206 posts)
7. the judge has repeatedly put his thumb on the scale in favor of the defense
These antics have been reported extensively through multiple outlets. If you choose to ignore that then you are saying more about your personal motivations with regard to this topic than the law.
lagomorph777 (27,383 posts)
8. The weapons charge being pre-emptively dismissed?
WI law allows WI kids to go hunting in the woods with hunting rifles (I will leave the questionable sanity of that for another debate).
It does not allow them to hunt human prey on city streets with assault rifles.
:whatever:
Star Member mzmolly (49,633 posts)
19. Uhm.
I think Wisconsin has laws against murder.
Star Member WarGamer (2,951 posts)
20. But murder has a legal definition and exceptions that apply...
It's all there, in black and white.
Don't like the law, change it.
Star Member mzmolly (49,633 posts)
24. And should the jury be reasonable
they'll determine that the people Rittenhouse murdered were A. not a danger and B. entitled to defend themselves and others against an active shooter.
Star Member WarGamer (2,951 posts)
25. #2-3 were clearly a danger.
A wooden plank with metal parts being swung at you is certainly a threat as is a Glock in the hand.
I heard an expert on TV say that it's possible that #2-3 probably BOTH had SD rights so it's possible that Rittenhouse and #2-3 ALL had SD rights but Rittenhouse shot first so he's alive.
It all comes down to shooting #1.
If it was legitimate SD, then #2-3 are done.
We're just going to have to wait for the Jury, I guess.
Star Member mzmolly (49,633 posts)
32. The evidence is that Rittenhouse committed murder. I've been 'looking' at the evidence since he slaughtered people.
What law do you suggest absolves him of murder?
yagotme (949 posts)
40. The prosecution kind of left out the "retreat" angle.
If you are the instigator, and you stop, back away, turn away, retreat, whatever, without causing any physical harm, and as you are retreating, the initial victim begins chasing you, they become the new aggressor. In the videos, KR was observed running from ALL of the individuals he shot, until he wasn't able to run anymore. Under this observance, the self defense will probably stand.
Star Member mzmolly (49,633 posts)
41. Rittenhouse was chased after his first blatant murder. Others, had a right to self defense.
:thatsright:
yagotme (949 posts)
50. What talking points?
You mean what was actually shown in the videos? I watched them, several times, looking for what others have been saying here that KR did. I have seen the opposite, mostly. I watched a good bit of the prosecution. The State's witnesses did a horrible job of convincing me, and the cross of GG by Defense had to be excruciating to Prosecution. Got him to admit he was standing over KR, with gun drawn, pointing it at him. Self defense 101. Not a talking point, court record.
Star Member mzmolly (49,633 posts)
65. Good grief.
I feel like I stumbled on a different forum.
I wish some people were arguing the facts vs. rumors, based upon the assertions of a proven liar. You're basically regurgitating RW talking points vs. considering the evidence.
Cheers.
Zeitghost (590 posts)
69. It's all there on video
Have you seen it? It clearly shows KR retreating and Rosenbaum chasing him, medical examiner testimony states Rosenbaum's hand was on the muzzle of the rifle when he was shot. The physical evidence indicates he was aggressor at that point.
Star Member DFW (44,640 posts)
23. I haven't followed the details enough to get specific, BUT...........
If he walks, I think he will have a stiff neck from looking over his shoulder for the next 20 years.
As well he should.
:bird:
Star Member mzmolly (49,633 posts)
33. Exactly. If he walks it's
clear evidence of white privilege at play, in our 'justice' system.
Amishman (4,001 posts)
61. If he's found guilty, it will be the jury judging on character rather than law
By the letter of the law, this does appear to be self defense. Unless the prosecution proved intent of provocation beyond a reasonable doubt was to entice a violent situation; then his retreat is sufficient to claim self defense against his pursuers. I don't think the prosecution tried to hard to prove he went there with the intent of shooting people - let alone proved it to the degree for a criminal case.
Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean the law isn't messed up.
Star Member Stuart G (31,900 posts)
91. Rittenhouse will NOT WALK..If you were on the jury, would you let him walk?
...That is my opinion. The facts are very clear, Rittenhouse went to kill, and he killed. He took a loaded gun to somewhere
and used the loaded gun to ...KILL SOMEONE!!!!
if I were on the jury, and if you were too, we would find a way to put him in prison...No matter what the f**king judge says..
Rittenhouse is guilty................................................................................
........................If you were on the jury would you let him walk? (no matter what the judge said) (f**k the judge)
:censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
-
30. I hear you and should have clarified. For this instance.
The people killed by that evil piece of shit with a gun (1)were not threatening him.
The killer crossed state lines (2)with a gun for a reason. He has (3)zero business there. Zero.
Let's see, (1) factually wrong, (2) factually wrong, and lastly (3) factually wrong (and hypocritical).
Wrong, wrong, wrong. And your argument is invalid.
-
IRL, are the legal definitions of self-defense in WI and NY substantially different? Even if NY requires effort to evade, as some states stupidly do (or did), R very obviously would have been in compliance with that requirement.
-
Mr.Bill
But let's face it, although it won't be said in court, if Kyle Rittenhouse was black, cops would have emptied their magazines into him that night.
And because he’s white, he’s getting railroaded by dolts like you.
I don’t agree with your premise, primitive. But even if that were true, how is what you and your fellow leftists doing any better? Hmmmmmmm…………….
.
-
Star Member WarGamer (2,951 posts)
20. But murder has a legal definition and exceptions that apply...
It's all there, in black and white.
Don't like the law, change it.
Such racism, I'm shocked and appalled. Quick, page MIRT and get this wicked white-supremacist banned...
-
Star Member WarGamer (2,951 posts)
20. But murder has a legal definition and exceptions that apply...
It's all there, in black and white.
Don't like the law, change it.
:-) I promise that Star Member WarGamer is not my mole, even though I've said, "Don't like the law, change it," many times on multiple forums in the past 23 years. :-)