Rittenhouse trial

[rmgill]

[Stuart Galbraith]

43 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I'm not sure that you're correct in the case of Rittenhouse. 

In the case of Grosskreutz, he was actually breaking the law by carrying. More so, I think he was breaking the law by owning. I suspect his conviction makes him a prohibited person federally. 

No. From his own testimony he claimed to be running in the same direction and not chasing him. This is despite evidence that he drew his firearm and began to run towards Rittenhouse. He would not characterize his behavior as chasing. But from everything I saw that seems to be him lying on the stand. 

Wrong. He drew the weapon and was carrying it in his hand before that occurred. You can SEE him in footage pulling his hand gun before Huber was shot. He did not see Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum. 

You've not watched much of the case have you? Or are you just getting the pre-digested material the media is giving you? 

You need to substantiate this.

You're taking your info from folks who heard the 1st part of the peson who read the first part of 948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

The hint is that folks aren't reading down to 3 (c) of that statute and then following to see what the other conditionals are. 

The law simply does not prohibit a 17 yo from possessing a rifle. It's not that simple. I've seen a legal discussion of this statute by several lawyers who I KNOW have won gun cases, one has represented me in a case against the county (Civil suit) and I will take their reading as what makes sense. The best that can be said is that the statute is poorly written. At worse, you can ague that the DA in the case can't read. Given that he keeps calling witnesses that torpedo his case, I can't be sure if he's incompetent OR if he's sabotaging his own case to make the appearance of trying for political reasons. 

But the fact that he deliberately ordered the police to not serve a search warrant for Grosskreutz's phone, arrest him for carrying the weapon illegally, arrest him for lying to the police about having the firearm on the night he was shot OR currying the police to obtain key evidence in the a homicide case (the skate board) where the person thought to have it was even in court, one has to wonder at their professionalism. 
 

I would argue that Rittenhouse was. He shot the people attacking him. He didn't shoot random people. He wasn't shooting anyone with a weapon. He only shot those who were directly and arguably manifesting a threat to life and limb to him. 

Even Grosskreutz admitted ONTHE STAND that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his own firearm at Rittenhouse. And that was after seeing Rittenhouse attacked by several other folks.  

 Does he have the right to carry that weapon outside his own property? I don't mean hunting, that obviously a easily defined activity he was not undertaking. Is there a specific law that says you can use a weapon in defence of others property?

Yeah, I picked up on the last. There clearly was discrimination in his part and a use of minimum force when he could. For me, the lack of discrimination in his part was being there without any kind of law enforcement training.

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I take your distinction about bearing arms and stand corrected, but the fact remains, neither had the right to carry them in public that night.

From what I understand from the testimony, the 'victim' whom was shot in the arm, was running WITH the shooter for a while. This is a somewhat different situation from someone whom was brandishing a gun, deliberately chasing someone to shoot him. He only pulled the gun when he figured out Rittenhouse had shot two people and may be thinking about shooting him too. Which ultimately he was right about.

Do I think Rittenhouse probably should be acquitted? Yes. But I still think he should be prosecuted for carrying a weapon he had no right to carry in public, just as much as the guy he shot in the arm whom testified against him, whom also had no right to carry a weapon in public. I dont see there is enough evidence at this point to prosecute Rittenhouse on the other 2 shootings.

Like I always said, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There was nobody thinking that night on either side.

You don't know that both were wrong in carrying arms that night.  It is not a "fact" that Rittenhaus was wrong because the law is so vague even the judge wasn't sure what the law was meant to prevent.  Your hearing news reports to the contrary doesn't make those reports you have heard, or you, factual.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

You don't know that both were wrong in carrying arms that night.  It is not a "fact" that Rittenhaus was wrong because the law is so vague even the judge wasn't sure what the law was meant to prevent.  Your hearing news reports to the contrary doesn't make those reports you have heard, or you, factual.

 

You realise you just said I'm not factual, at the same time as saying you don't know I'm wrong.

if the law is that vague, he didn't know what he was doing was legal either. If he didn't know it was legal, he should not have put himself in that situation. You don't need to be a lawyer to figure that one out.

Like I said, he should be acquitted. It doesn't mean he didn't act like a damn fool. 

[Tim Sielbeck]

You not being factual is the equivalent to being wrong when you purport to be making factual statements.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

You not being factual is the equivalent to being wrong when you purport to be making factual statements.

Please provide the legal judgement that says that my perception was wholly incorrect, and I'll happily retract it. Can't say fairer than that. If you cannot, you also cannot assert it is not factual, only that it's very debateable. That is fairly self clear I think.

Still standing by the point that if none of you are not certain his owing a weapon is legal, he couldn't either.

 

Incidentally, Tanknet is the only place I know where I suggest someone should be acquitted, and I'm told off for not acquitting him for the right reasons.

 

 

 

 

[Yama]

Quite frankly I don't understand the hero worship this kid gets in some circles. He was a complete and utter dumbass to start LARPin a cop with a live weapon without any kind of training, experience or maturity for the job. Whilst I don't think he should be put to jail for rest of his life, ultimately the deaths are on him because he brought a gun into situation he couldn't handle. It's no coincidence that the only fatal incident from a week of rioting with hundreds of people carrying guns around, came from the weapon of a 17-year old.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, that sums it up for me.

[Tim Sielbeck]

12 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Please provide the legal judgement that says that my perception was wholly incorrect, and I'll happily retract it. Can't say fairer than that. If you cannot, you also cannot assert it is not factual, only that it's very debateable. That is fairly self clear I think.

Still standing by the point that if none of you are not certain his owing a weapon is legal, he couldn't either.

Incidentally, Tanknet is the only place I know where I suggest someone should be acquitted, and I'm told off for not acquitting him for the right reasons.

Stuart, the point of this trial IS to provide that legal judgement.  And I seriously doubt you'll happily retract any opinion you've posted on Tanknet.  I can assert anything is nonfactual if it hasn't been proven to be an actual fact.  When someone uses the phrase "the fact remains" they are asserting something as factual by assumption, not proving it is, in actuality, a fact.  My point was that your fact is up for debate and has not been decided.

Whether or not he owned the weapon is not at issue, it is whether or not he had a right to possess, i.e. carry, the firearm.  That is also to be determined by the trial, not people who live on the eastern side of the Atlantic.

"Do I think Rittenhouse probably should be acquitted? Yes. But I still think he should be prosecuted for carrying a weapon..." is not saying he should be acquitted.  

 

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

35 minutes ago, Yama said:

It's no coincidence that the only fatal incident from a week of rioting with hundreds of people carrying guns around, came from the weapon of a 17-year old.

So how many other people were carrying and how many of them were attacked?

[Stuart Galbraith]

39 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Stuart, the point of this trial IS to provide that legal judgement.  And I seriously doubt you'll happily retract any opinion you've posted on Tanknet.  I can assert anything is nonfactual if it hasn't been proven to be an actual fact.  When someone uses the phrase "the fact remains" they are asserting something as factual by assumption, not proving it is, in actuality, a fact.  My point was that your fact is up for debate and has not been decided.

Whether or not he owned the weapon is not at issue, it is whether or not he had a right to possess, i.e. carry, the firearm.  That is also to be determined by the trial, not people who live on the eastern side of the Atlantic.

"Do I think Rittenhouse probably should be acquitted? Yes. But I still think he should be prosecuted for carrying a weapon..." is not saying he should be acquitted.  

 

 

Oh I have done many times. Remember when I revised my opinion and agreed Biden was a jerk? But that doesnt fit with the Narrative im one of the enemy does it?

 

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 Does he have the right to carry that weapon outside his own property? I don't mean hunting, that obviously a easily defined activity he was not undertaking. Is there a specific law that says you can use a weapon in defence of others property?

At least in free parts of the world, laws restrict actions, they don’t permit them as the default. In other words, unless specifically prohibited by law, any/all actions are, by default, legal. 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, I picked up on the last. There clearly was discrimination in his part and a use of minimum force when he could. For me, the lack of discrimination in his part was being there without any kind of law enforcement training.

 

Many other persons were carrying firearms that night. The FBI had clear footage of this. The media does as well. State’s witnesses were armed. Has anyone of those persons been charged? 

More so, one need not need have law enforcement training to defend property or one’s self…

Edited November 10, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You realise you just said I'm not factual, at the same time as saying you don't know I'm wrong.

if the law is that vague, he didn't know what he was doing was legal either. If he didn't know it was legal, he should not have put himself in that situation. You don't need to be a lawyer to figure that one out.

Like I said, he should be acquitted. It doesn't mean he didn't act like a damn fool. 

Well, if the law is that vague and confusing, then the behavior is legal. This is a clear principle of basic civil rights. 

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Quite frankly I don't understand the hero worship this kid gets in some circles. He was a complete and utter dumbass to start LARPin a cop with a live weapon without any kind of training, experience or maturity for the job. Whilst I don't think he should be put to jail for rest of his life, ultimately the deaths are on him because he brought a gun into situation he couldn't handle. It's no coincidence that the only fatal incident from a week of rioting with hundreds of people carrying guns around, came from the weapon of a 17-year old.

I am quite amazed that so many people are so willing to give the criminal rioters, arsonists and violent attackers a pass for their actions. Yama, have you seen the footage of what Rosenbaum was doing that night? 

Considering the cops couldn't be bothered to actually arrest clear perpetrators of arson and even pepper sprayed Rittenhouse when he was trying to surrender, its arguable that the public was on its own and the only those willing were going to stop the actions of the rioters. 

If you’re on a train, and you see a man raping a woman, you don’t have police training. What are you supposed to do? 

One of the state’s witnesses, Fielder, specifically had been protesting with BLM but changed tacks after the shop keeper was beaten and murdered earlier.  She turned out with the same group that Kyle was with  

I think it could be argued that if the criminals hadn’t been out rioting, those that attacked Kyle would not have been shot. Kyle, as a smaller, less built person likely was selected by Rosenbaum based on his predilections for victim selection. Lets be clear here…Rosenbaum was convicted of multiple cases of molestation of small boys . If he hadn’t selected Kyle, he very likely would have selected a smaller woman like States witness Mrs Fielder. I think its arguable, from the FBI footage that Rosenbaum may have hidden to stalk Rosenbaum. 

One of the things being thrown by the rioters was bleach and ammonia bombs. That makes chlorine gas. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Please provide the legal judgement that says that my perception was wholly incorrect, and I'll happily retract it.

 

Have you read the statute in question? Perhaps you can break it down by citation and sentence structure? It’d be a good exercise for you. 

 

If you’re going to repeatedly assert something is illegal, perhaps you can stand by it and explain it. 

 

For my own purposes, We know that Grosskreutz was not legally licensed anymore to carry. His record points to questions of if he was even legal to possesses, let alone carry, a firearm. I fully admit that’s grey, and until we see the paperwork for his adjudication, expungements (if any) and other paperwork relating to his felony charges and/or convictions, we won’t know. However the fact remains he was NOT legally carrying, this was asserted and appeared to have been substantiated in court, he was involved in an altercation that night and appears by his own admission to have lied to the police. The fact that he has a claim against the city demanding $10 million in damages is also of import. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by rmgill

[DKTanker]

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Quite frankly I don't understand the hero worship this kid gets in some circles. He was a complete and utter dumbass to start LARPin a cop with a live weapon without any kind of training, experience or maturity for the job. Whilst I don't think he should be put to jail for rest of his life, ultimately the deaths are on him because he brought a gun into situation he couldn't handle. It's no coincidence that the only fatal incident from a week of rioting with hundreds of people carrying guns around, came from the weapon of a 17-year old.

I know, right.  He, and everyone else, should have let the righteous Leftist terrorists vandalize and burn the city unmolested.  Rittenhouse had no business putting out fires started by the Righteous Band of Terrorists.  And after having done so he should have meekly bent a knee before Rosenbaum when Rosenbaum said he was going to kill Rittenhouse if he ever got him alone.
I am beginning to understand how fascism was able to sweep across Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.

[DKTanker]

19 minutes ago, rmgill said:

If you’re on a train, and you see a man raping a woman, you don’t have police training. What are you supposed to do? 

I'm  starting to believe "take a number" is the correct answer in today's world.

Edited November 9, 2021 by DKTanker

[Yama]

28 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I am quite amazed that so many people are so willing to give the criminal rioters, arsonists and violent attackers a pass for their actions. Yama, have you seen the footage of what Rosenbaum was doing that night?  

No. How many people he killed? That's right...zero. Just like everyone else there, including the cops, National Guard, rioters, self-appointed militia...all except Rittenhouse. And Rittenhouse wasn't some bystander who happened to witness a crime in progress, so your analogy falls completely flat. He went to another state and armed himself so he could get his part of the 'action'. That puts him on same moral ground as those rioters who did exactly same.

[sunday]

I would like to apologize in the name of all Europeans that do not make "facts" out of thin air, nor take things out of context.

[Yama]

29 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

I am beginning to understand how fascism was able to sweep across Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.

Very good! It's not very hard to understand though, it has been quite well documented by historians and contemporary media. At its core, the rise of Fascism employed unofficial armed militias, publicly justified under the pretense that regular police was unable to provide security.  

[DKTanker]

1 minute ago, Yama said:

Very good! It's not very hard to understand though, it has been quite well documented by historians and contemporary media. At its core, the rise of Fascism employed unofficial armed militias, publicly justified under the pretense that regular police was unable to provide security.  

You're omitting a salient point, a populace that not only refused to stand against the intimidation of terrorizing organizations, they gratefully supported them and their battle against Jews and Gypsies and other such deplorables.

[Yama]

3 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

You're omitting a salient point, a populace that not only refused to stand against the intimidation of terrorizing organizations, they gratefully supported them and their battle against Jews and Gypsies and other such deplorables.

Oh right! Because you are here definitely NOT supporting armed militias...

[Simon Tan]

Generations of indoctrination is what makes for good Yurrupeens. USians are just uncultured rabble with guns. Unless they a Yurrupewannabes. 

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Rittenhouse ... went to another state and armed himself so he could get his part of the 'action'.

What supports your assertion about his motivation?

I have haven't followed this case with supreme attention, but my impression of Rittenhouse's motivation (within the limitations of what can actually be investigated) is different. What have I missed?

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Yama said:

No. How many people he killed? That's right...zero. Just like everyone else there, including the cops, National Guard, rioters, self-appointed militia...all except Rittenhouse.

You understand that self defense is about reacting, based on things you know in the moment that are reasonable? One need not be killed before one can react to the attack. Which is a novel way to look at things I guess. 

The day before, August 24th, this occurred. 
 

2 hours ago, Yama said:

And Rittenhouse wasn't some bystander who happened to witness a crime in progress, so your analogy falls completely flat. He went to another state and armed himself so he could get his part of the 'action'. That puts him on same moral ground as those rioters who did exactly same.

No it does not. Another state which is right down the road from where he lived. He didn't live miles away, he lives on the border. We don't consider things in another state to be dramatically distant places. 

And again, there's a vast difference between protective and lawful behavior and rioting, beating, looting, arson and otherwise predatory and destructive behavior. 

I'll ask again though. You're on a subway, you see a man raping a woman. You're not a trained police officer. So what do you do?  We can add a special bit since it seems important. You've just crossed a state/county/city line. So, what are you going to do?

Edited November 10, 2021 by rmgill