Rittenhouse trial

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Yama said:

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

Is it better if it's not armed militias, but in fact armed government troops doing the bad deeds? Are thusly, all armed government troops likewise tarred with the same brush? 

Shouldn't you be looking at the intent and lawful actions of the militias OR government troops or whom ever? 

Also, you use the word militia, what is that? Are the police Militia? National Guard? Historically, Militia were folks called up by the government, armed with equipment out of their own pocket that they were required to fund, and then provide security to the local/state area. 

Are volunteer police militia? What about volunteer firefighters? Are those likewise tarred with the same brush you seem so intent to wave about like a blind paper hanger? 

[Tim Sielbeck]

3 hours ago, Yama said:

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.

He went there to protect the community he worked in unlike most of the rioters.  Yes, he crossed a state line.  The city he is from is right on it and ~15 miles from Kenosha.  It's not like he was California.

[DKTanker]

27 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

He went there to protect the community he worked in unlike most of the rioters.  Yes, he crossed a state line.  The city he is from is right on it and ~15 miles from Kenosha.  It's not like he was California.

Not to mention the very afternoon of the events that changed lives, he was caught cleaning graffiti from the walls of a High School.  For shame, for shame.  Behold, the natural born killer.

[rmgill]

Was he trained to clean graffiti? Isn't that a government job? Did he have a permit for the solvents and cleaning materials? Did he carry chemicals across state lines? 

Edited November 10, 2021 by rmgill

[Tim Sielbeck]

31 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Not to mention the very afternoon of the events that changed lives, he was caught cleaning graffiti from the walls of a High School.  For shame, for shame.  Behold, the natural born killer.

I know!  Such a terrible person!

[R011]

5 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. 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.

Protecting property in a city near enough he lived in its suburbs is the same as traveling hundred of miles to burn property down?

[Stargrunt6]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

Was he trained to clean graffiti? Isn't that a government job? Did he have a permit for the solvents and cleaning materials? Did he carry chemicals across state lines? 

No PPE, clearly OSHA statutes were not followed.

[rmgill]

Covid isn't transmissable with BLM protesting/rioting going on. 😉

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by rmgill

[Simon Tan]

In Yurrupland, you do not protect public property. It is not yours. It belongs to the State. 

[Yama]

7 hours ago, rmgill said:

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?

What I don't do is to go to another state/city/county with my gun so I can patrol there in a subway and possibly get into fatal altercations.

Again, your analogy is completely fallacious.

[Ssnake]

Can you please tell me how you know that Rittenhouse wanted his piece of the action.

[Burncycle360]

Possibly assumptions based on prejudice regarding his "type", same reason some reflexively defend or condemn him.  It's never been about Kyle per se to many, it's about the greater culture war.

[Yama]

4 hours ago, R011 said:

Protecting property in a city near enough he lived in its suburbs is the same as traveling hundred of miles to burn property down?

No, shooting two people is the same - well, actually, worse.

Again, Rittenhouse was the ONLY one who caused fatal casualties during the unrest. Nobody else killed anyone - not the armed protesters, not the armed civilians protecting property, not the cops, not the National Guard. Not even the guy Rittenhouse was with, who was also armed and witnessed the same events which led to the shooting. Only him, because he was too inexperienced and immature and got into situation where he panicked.

[Yama]

2 minutes ago, Burncycle360 said:

Possibly assumptions based on prejudice regarding his "type", same reason some reflexively defend or condemn him.

This is pretty thick thing to say in a thread full of sweeping statements what the 'leftist' peoples motivations are.

[sunday]

13 minutes ago, Yama said:

This is pretty thick thing to say in a thread full of sweeping statements what the 'leftist' peoples motivations are.

Oh, they are known, basically to destroy Western, Christian society in the name of Social Justice, a perfect egalitarian society, and all that crap. And this time, in contrast to the several dozens of previous attempts, it will work. Previous attempts did not work because those were not faithful enough to the ideal.

That is what the NPC drones seem to think. Their bosses know better.

Then there are the motivations of the shock troops. Those seem to be free drugs, free sex, freedom to do violence upon innocent bystanders (no wonder there are so many felons among the BLM "activists"), and some money. Note also that the Antifa motto "It is OK to punch a Nazi" leaves the definition of Nazi in a quite nebulous form. Observation of the deeds of those fine people seems to support "Whoever is not a Commie/Antifa/BLM is a Nazi".

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by sunday

[Yama]

9 minutes ago, sunday said:

Oh, they are known, basically to destroy Western, Christian society in the name of Social Justice, a perfect egalitarian society, and all that crap. And this time, in contrast to the several dozens of previous attempts, it will work. Previous attempts did not work because those were not faithful enough to the ideal.

That is what the NPC drones seem to think. Their bosses know better.

Then there are the motivations of the shock troops. Those seem to be free drugs, free sex, freedom to do violence upon innocent bystanders (no wonder there are so many felons among the BLM "activists"), and some money. Note also that the Antifa motto "It is OK to punch a Nazi" leaves the definition of Nazi in a quite nebulous form. Observation of the deeds of those fine people seems to support "Whoever is not a Commie/Antifa/BLM is a Nazi".

And there is it! Thank you.

FWIW, what I have observed, Antifa is about as popular brand name within the left as Neo-Nazi are within the right.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

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

Hang on, lets get this straight. If you THINK something is legal, than it is?  I think we have already established that isnt exactly true by the fact he is on trial.

I think the law is pretty clear in your country and mine, that it insists people know whether something is legal or not, and that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. You cannot use the argument 'oh, I didnt know it was a restricted parking area officer' and get off without a ticket. 'Oh im sorry officer, I didnt know urinating in public was illegal'. 'Oh sorry officer, public fornication in the shopping mall in opening hours isnt permitted? Who would have known?' You know this. You dont need me to point this out to you. Try not paying your taxes and telling them you didnt know they were due yet. Do you think It would work?

So here are the charges he is facing. Im no lawyer but a few things jump out at me.

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-police-shootings-wisconsin-kenosha-3febaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26

This felony charge is connected to the death of Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man Rittenhouse shot. Bystander video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through a parking lot and throwing a plastic bag at him. Rittenhouse flees behind a car and Rosenbaum follows. No video of the moment Rittenhouse pulled the trigger has surfaced yet, if any exists. Richard McGinnis, a reporter who was trailing Rittenhouse, told investigators that Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse’s gun, according to the criminal complaint.

Reckless homicide differs from intentional homicide in that prosecutors aren’t alleging Rittenhouse intended to murder Rosenbaum. Instead, they’re alleging Rittenhouse caused Rosenbaum’s death by showing an utter disregard for human life.

Former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher said prosecutors’ decision to charge reckless instead of intentional homicide shows they don’t know what happened between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum and what might have been going through Rittenhouse’s mind when he pulled the trigger.

FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This felony charge is also connected to the Rosenbaum shooting. McGinnis told investigators he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. The charge is punishable by 12 1/2 years in prison. The weapons modifier carries another five years.

FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This charge is connected to Anthony Huber’s death. Video shows Rittenhouse running down the street after shooting Rosenbaum when he falls to the street. Huber leaps at him and swings a skateboard at his head and neck and tries to grab Rittenhouse’s gun before Rittenhouse fires. The criminal complaint alleges Rittenhouse aimed the weapon at Huber.

Intentional homicide means just that — a person killed someone and meant to do it. Bucher said that if Rittenhouse pointed the gun at Rosenbaum and pulled the trigger that would amount to intentional homicide. However, self-defense would trump the charge.

“Why I intended to kill this individual makes the difference,” Bucher said.

The count carries a mandatory life sentence. The weapons modifier would add up to five years.

ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This is the charge for Rittenhouse shooting Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm seconds after he shot Huber, and as Grosskreutz came toward him holding a pistol. Grosskreutz survived. Video shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Grosskreutz and firing a single round.

The charge carries a maximum sentence of 60 years. The weapons modifier would add up to five more years.

FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Video shows an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him seconds before Huber moves his skateboard toward him. Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away.

This charge is a felony punishable by 12 1/2 years in prison. The weapons modifier again would add up to five more years.

POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

Rittenhouse was armed with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle. He was 17 years old on the night of the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting.

The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Kenosha officials imposed an 8 p.m. curfew the night of the shootings. Rittenhouse was still on the streets as midnight approached. The offense is punishable by up to $200 in forfeitures.

 

 

  Cant see endangerment, he only seems to have shot the people he intended to. Cant see Reckless homicide, evidence has been given he was acting in self defence, and no evidence of the act anyway. Second Homicide, again, self defence. He was clearly being attacked, even with a half assed weapon. Attempted homicide, he only shot once and the guy lived. He could have given a double tap (heck any 17 year old playing Rainbow 6 knows that one). He showed restraint, not   shooting everyone around him which he clearly could have done. Endangering safety of a guy trying to kick him? Yeah right. All those I cant see him going to jail for. The last two, I dont see he has a leg to stand on.

I think he will almost certainly walk. I even think he should walk. He will probably get community service for the ownership of the rifle, and he will get a fine.

What isnt directly punishible is stupidity. If Stupidity was a crime, he would be facing the chair. Darwinism should have consequences.

 

[sunday]

You are welcome. If you want any more useful help, please do not hesitate to ask.

[jmsaari]

41 minutes ago, Yama said:

Again, Rittenhouse was the ONLY one who caused fatal casualties during the unrest. Nobody else killed anyone - not the armed protesters, not the armed civilians protecting property, not the cops, not the National Guard. Not even the guy Rittenhouse was with, who was also armed and witnessed the same events which led to the shooting. Only him, because he was too inexperienced and immature and got into situation where he panicked.

The fact that he killed 2 and wounded 3rd is irrelevant, issue is whether he was justified. In the odd chance you're not just trolling here, do check the videos before mouthing off any further. And please do respond to Ssnake's question, kind of curious...

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by jmsaari

[Simon Tan]

Your virtue is noted. Carry on.

[Ssnake]

45 minutes ago, Yama said:

This is pretty thick thing to say in a thread full of sweeping statements what the 'leftist' peoples motivations are.

You're getting worked up about others mind-reading you when you were the one to start the mind-reading - specifically, divining Rittenhouse's intentions. Your indignancy appears to me as an attempt to deflect from the fact that you haven't yet provided even a single indication in support of your rather severe assertion that Rittenhouse fully intended to get himself attacked in pursuit of his ultimate goal, to shoot people.

[Stuart Galbraith]

If he wanted to kill people, he had the weapon to kill a lot more than 2. He clearly had restraint. 

[BansheeOne]

Other people have been shot dead in the course of the BLM protests. Some in more (the guy who was killed by a driver straying towards a march for pointing an AK at him) or less (the TV security type who shot a pro-Trump protester for pointing a mace can at him) justifyable self-defense, some clearly intentionally like the guy who essentially set up another mace-toting Trump supporter in Portland. It probably all goes to show that you shouldn't bring guns to a protest; but again, once a self-defense situation occurs, the legitimacy of use is divorced from whether you should have done, or even been there.

Yeah, it's likely nobody would have gotten killed that night if Rittenhouse hadn't brought a rifle, but all other things being equal probably at the price of him getting beat up by the first guy he shot. So it was not his fault that he was the only one who killed people; he was just the only one who got attacked that way while armed. That's irrespective of whether he "wanted a piece of the action", which I can fully believe; I was like that at 18-19 myself. Of course then I joined the Bundeswehr and got trained an actual combat medic, and understood it's not an adventure game. 

[DKTanker]

5 hours ago, Yama said:

And there is it! Thank you.

FWIW, what I have observed, Antifa is about as popular brand name within the left as Neo-Nazi are within the right.

Give us one example, just one, of a US politician of the left condemning ANTIFA.  What's fascinating about the ANTIFA paradigm is the amount of fascism being perpetrated by the so called anti-fascists.

And yeah, at least on this side of the pond ANTIFA is a popular brand name with the left, though perhaps not as popular as BLM.  Either way, when Kamala Harris and friends were bailing rioters and street terrorists out of jail, they weren't asking about affiliations. 

Given his testimony about being a revolutionary, perhaps we can understand the left's sympathy for Gaige Grosskreutz?

[nitflegal]

6 hours ago, Yama said:

No, shooting two people is the same - well, actually, worse.

Again, Rittenhouse was the ONLY one who caused fatal casualties during the unrest. Nobody else killed anyone - not the armed protesters, not the armed civilians protecting property, not the cops, not the National Guard. Not even the guy Rittenhouse was with, who was also armed and witnessed the same events which led to the shooting. Only him, because he was too inexperienced and immature and got into situation where he panicked.

I'm not entirely sure that he panicked but I tend to agree that he was in over his head.  I tend to think that he was both idealistic and probably looking for adventure combined with wanting to make a difference.  He ended up in a city that didn't want him surrounded by people who wanted him (and everyone like him) hurt and dead.  I'm not excusing the attackers who are better off dead IMO but Rittenhouse has suffered and been punished for his idealism.  I think the unfortunate message is that in the big Democrat cities the best decision is to let them burn.  You are putting your freedom and life on the line trying to help the people who need it.