Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[Captainant 28395]

 

Well it's at least going as anticipated. Right to bear arms, not skateboards amirite

 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Not to be a downer, but I have a feeling that rittenhouse is gonna get off easy. The judge's rules for the trial are ridiculous and indicate an bias in favor of the defendant.

The people shot and killed by a child who crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm cannot be referred to as "victims", but the defense can frame the victims as "looters", "rioters", and "arsonists". And the defense also gets to show the video of the cops thanking rittenhouse for breaking the law and throwing him a bottle of water, mere minutes before he killed two people - because that will definitely have no influence on the jury amirite??? 

The thin blue line of authoritarianism is going to protect this shitbird and inspire more to act like him.

Hope they throw the book at him like the DC Uber Eats shooters.  To discourage future events.

Edited November 2, 2021 by ChickenSandwich

[Captainant 28395]

3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Hope they throw the book at him like the DC Uber shooters.

Not much comparable between those cases fact pattern tbh, not sure where you're going with this aside from CR

[Johnny Sack 8397]

29 minutes ago, Bravo said:

If you look at each incident separately I believe self defense will be the verdict. He likely will be convicted on the gun charge though. He had a guy chasing him while gun shots went off 2 seconds near him right before he shot Rosenbaum who was chasing/charging him and going for his gun. Other guy hit him over the head with a skateboard while he was on the ground while grabbing his gun. 3rd guy was about to shoot him with a glock. It's kinda that simple.

Yep.  Pretty cut and dry.  Glad he had his rifle.  Two scumbags who were attacking him dead.  One scumbag who was about to shoot him disarmed, literally.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Not to be a downer, but I have a feeling that rittenhouse is gonna get off easy. The judge's rules for the trial are ridiculous and indicate an bias in favor of the defendant.

The people shot and killed by a child who crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm cannot be referred to as "victims", but the defense can frame the victims as "looters", "rioters", and "arsonists". And the defense also gets to show the video of the cops thanking rittenhouse for breaking the law and throwing him a bottle of water, mere minutes before he killed two people - because that will definitely have no influence on the jury amirite??? 

The thin blue line of authoritarianism is going to protect this shitbird and inspire more to act like him.

He did not cross state lines with the fire arm.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/10/kyle-rittenhouse-friend-charged-bought-him-gun-kenosha-shooting/6231407002/

Quote

Prosecutors say Black kept the gun in Wisconsin, and Rittenhouse never possessed it in Illinois, where he lived with his mother and sisters. 

And this judge, as do many others, does not allow decedents in a murder case where self defense is at issue to be referred to as victims under Rule 403.  Defense can call the decedents rioters, looters or arsonists if they introduce evidence of same. This is pretty unremarkable.

Also, the state line pearl clutching needs to stop.  He lives 20 miles away and he previously worked in Kenosha.  It is dumb.  The pedo he shot and the others he shot came from much farther away.

The gun charge misdemeanor might have some legs.  But there is an argument under the statute that, due to a recent amendment, it does not apply to the type of gun Rittenhouse used.  In any event, it is a misdemeanor and has absolutely zero relevance to whether Rittenhouse had a right to self defense.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

I am watching this and the DA did not put on a good opening argument. He also potentially opened up Rosenbaum's history as to him being released from a mental hospital that same day. What a screw up. Judge is now going to rule on that later. I was watching it and saying did he just bring that up? I'm sure the judge and defense team were like WOW. I am sure it wont be open to Rosenbaum being a filthy multiple child rapist but potentially now he was released from a mental hospital and why he had a restraining order at his spouse's house.

Not sure that moves the needle much for the defense.  There is video of the convicted dead pedo him acting like a complete psychopath minutes before Kyle put him out of his misery.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

The state's opening was ineffective at best. There's no theme or emotional trigger. The closest to a theme I heard was that Kyle was the only one who killed someone that night. I'm not sure that really does anything for the state. It's such a shitty argument.... Yeah it was chaos. yes, people were trying to burn the city down. But this guys the only one who had to defend himself...because he was the only one not going along with the arson and destruction.

For "playing vigilante" Rittenhouse has odd behavior of helping clean up graffiti, helping treat a protestors wounds along with trying to put out a dumpster fire at a gas station. Then he runs away and only uses his weapon in obvious self defense. Those aren't "vigilante" actions no matter what he may have said on a video (which isn't admissible). This case is simple.  Just watch the tape.

As a side note, I am actually pretty surprised of this young man's actions once shit hit the fan.  He remained calm.  And only shot the people who were attacking him.

[Captainant 28395]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The gun charge misdemeanor might have some legs.  But there is an argument under the statute that, due to a recent amendment, it does not apply to the type of gun Rittenhouse used.  In any event, it is a misdemeanor and has absolutely zero relevance to whether Rittenhouse had a right to self defense.

Illegally obtaining a gun for a prohibited person through a strawman purchase is a felony. The fact it isn't being prosecuted as such is another perversion in this case.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Illegally obtaining a gun for a prohibited person through a strawman purchase is a felony. The fact it isn't being prosecuted as such is another perversion in this case.

The buyer was charged with making a straw purchase.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/10/kyle-rittenhouse-friend-charged-bought-him-gun-kenosha-shooting/6231407002/

[Captainant 28395]

35 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The state's opening was ineffective at best. There's no theme or emotional trigger. The closest to a theme I heard was that Kyle was the only one who killed someone that night. I'm not sure that really does anything for the state. It's such a shitty argument.... Yeah it was chaos. yes, people were trying to burn the city down. But this guys the only one who had to defend himself...because he was the only one not going along with the arson and destruction.

For "playing vigilante" Rittenhouse has odd behavior of helping clean up graffiti, helping treat a protestors wounds along with trying to put out a dumpster fire at a gas station. Then he runs away and only uses his weapon in obvious self defense. Those aren't "vigilante" actions no matter what he may have said on a video (which isn't admissible). This case is simple.  Just watch the tape.

As a side note, I am actually pretty surprised of this young man's actions once shit hit the fan.  He remained calm.  And only shot the people who were attacking him.

Back to the trial rules... It's absurd that the judge did not allow any other video of rittenhouse from prior public social media posts where he was punching a girl and another where he commented that he wished he had the chance to shoot some shoplifters. 

Statements like that, along with interviews with media outlets just days prior to the shooting, go to the heart of his self defense argument. If you go somewhere looking for a fight and start trouble and then get in trouble, is it really self defense, or just losing a fight you instigated?

I'm just generally concerned that his defense is using the police argument of "split second" decision making that ignores the totality of factors that put that person in the position to defend themselves. It completely ignores the agency and decisions made by the defendant that led to their deadly use of force. 

It's the thin blue line protecting one of their own who was able to "hunt down" protesters like they want to.

18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The buyer was charged with making a straw purchase.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/10/kyle-rittenhouse-friend-charged-bought-him-gun-kenosha-shooting/6231407002/

And it's typical for the prohibited person making the purchase to also be charged with conspiracy to violate federal law if they orchestrated the purhcase like rittenhouse did. And another 10 year/$100k penalty if the prohibited person possesses the gun.

We have gun laws. We should be fucking using them.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Captainant

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

22 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The state's opening was ineffective at best. There's no theme or emotional trigger. The closest to a theme I heard was that Kyle was the only one who killed someone that night. I'm not sure that really does anything for the state. It's such a shitty argument.... Yeah it was chaos. yes, people were trying to burn the city down. But this guys the only one who had to defend himself...because he was the only one not going along with the arson and destruction.

For "playing vigilante" Rittenhouse has odd behavior of helping clean up graffiti, helping treat a protestors wounds along with trying to put out a dumpster fire at a gas station. Then he runs away and only uses his weapon in obvious self defense. Those aren't "vigilante" actions no matter what he may have said on a video (which isn't admissible). This case is simple.  Just watch the tape.

As a side note, I am actually pretty surprised of this young man's actions once shit hit the fan.  He remained calm.  And only shot the people who were attacking him.

He's not a "young man" he's a stupid fucking psychopath w/ an enabling cunt mom...right up your alley. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

25 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Back to the trial rules... It's absurd that the judge did not allow any other video of rittenhouse from prior public social media posts where he was punching a girl and another where he commented that he wished he had the chance to shoot some shoplifters. 

Wrong.  Just wrong.  That stuff was never coming in a criminal case.  

And LMAO at shoplifters.  You mean looters.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Back to the trial rules... It's absurd that the judge did not allow any other video of rittenhouse from prior public social media posts where he was punching a girl and another where he commented that he wished he had the chance to shoot some shoplifters. 

Statements like that, along with interviews with media outlets just days prior to the shooting, go to the heart of his self defense argument. If you go somewhere looking for a fight and start trouble and then get in trouble, is it really self defense, or just losing a fight you instigated?

I'm just generally concerned that his defense is using the police argument of "split second" decision making that ignores the totality of factors that put that person in the position to defend themselves. It completely ignores the agency and decisions made by the defendant that led to their deadly use of force. 

It's the thin blue line protecting one of their own who was able to "hunt down" protesters like they want to.

And it's typical for the prohibited person making the purchase to also be charged with conspiracy to violate federal law if they orchestrated the purhcase like rittenhouse did. And another 10 year/$100k penalty if the prohibited person possesses the gun.

We have gun laws. We should be fucking using them.

We live in a world where dickheads like you are discouraging policing and celebrating riots, looting, property damage, and hurting people. It's close to the time when folks are going to step in the gap and protect ourselves and each other in the absence of useful government.

Kids his age have fought and defended for most of human history. We have only recently infantilized our kids to the point where they are barely adults in their 20s or even 30s. Kid was clearly trained and knew how to use the weapon, as he used it perfectly to defend himself. All it took for those useless POSs to not get shot was not to attack him. I have zero issue with him putting them down.

I would discourage anyone I know or care about from doing the same because I don't want them at risk. That is my selfish side. But I would be proud of them risking themselves for others.  Kid had every right to be there.  He did not go hunting anyone.  He had his rifle for self defense.  He was cleaning graffiti, rendering aid, and trying to stop rioting arsonists from pushing a dumpster lit on fire towards a gas station.  He threatened no one with his rifle.  He used it to defend himself only when attacked and he had no other choice.

Three people fucked around.  Three people found out.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

36 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

He's not a "young man" he's a stupid fucking psychopath w/ an enabling cunt mom...right up your alley. 

[Captainant 28395]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Wrong.  Just wrong.  That stuff was never coming in a criminal case.  

And LMAO at shoplifters.  You mean looters.

You're right, a video of rittenhouse showing his intent by saying “Bro, I wish I had my (expletive) AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them. It looks like one of them has a weapon” just 15 days prior to using an illegally obtained gun to kill someone has no place in a criminal case lol.

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

He was cleaning graffiti, rendering aid, and trying to stop rioting arsonists from pushing a dumpster lit on fire towards a gas station.

[citation needed] considering that he put more holes into people than he patched up that night

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

He threatened no one with his rifle.  He used it to defend himself only when attacked and he had no other choice.

By his own admission to the daily caller in his interview, he went there to play vigilante. He wanted to do the police's job for them and made it a point to bring his ILLEGALLY OBTAINED AND POSSESED rifle with him. 

 

And jesus fucking christ, your idolization of him is disgusting sack.

[Captainant 28395]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It's close to the time when folks are going to step in the gap and protect ourselves and each other in the absence of useful government.

"When do we get to use the guns???" is really starting to become a more worrying question - especially when the same people asking think that Jan 6 was just a peaceful tour

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're right, a video of rittenhouse showing his intent by saying “Bro, I wish I had my (expletive) AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them. It looks like one of them has a weapon” just 15 days prior to using an illegally obtained gun to kill someone has no place in a criminal case lol.

[citation needed] considering that he put more holes into people than he patched up that night

By his own admission to the daily caller in his interview, he went there to play vigilante. He wanted to do the police's job for them and made it a point to bring his ILLEGALLY OBTAINED AND POSSESED rifle with him. 

 

And jesus fucking christ, your idolization of him is disgusting sack.

Whether his rifle was illegally obtained and possessed is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

And no, that video does not come in. 

[52-80 19376]

2 hours ago, Bravo said:

I have not seen the jury breakdown. To be fair though, weren't the 3 people shot or killed white?

well, that spoils the race card.  maybe we can dig through his facebook and twitter history to find something incriminating.

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

you're a coward and a cunt

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

you're a coward and a cunt

And I don't know who you are and don't care.

[Captainant 28395]

Just now, Bravo said:

However, the defense argument can be made that the victim was simply protecting themselves in fear of their life.

Yup, rittenhouse is using the police defense of "I feared for my life in the situation that I inserted myself into". Warrior cop mentality in a 17 year old kid who illegally bought a rifle so he could patrol the streets during a planned anti-police brutality protest. 

Really have a hard time sympathizing with a self defense argument when he made every move to put himself there into a dangerous situation.

[TexasEd 8248]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Whether his rifle was illegally obtained and possessed is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

And no, that video does not come in. 

I think the argument is that his intent should be used to show he went there to create the confrontation and that self defense should not be claimed when you create the conflict.  The whole reason he was there is because he wanted to shoot protestors/looters/rioters/arsonists so he went looking for them with an illegally obtained firearm.

The self defense argument is moot because he was hunting.

[JimmyJames 12271]

32 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

We live in a world where dickheads like you are discouraging policing and celebrating riots, looting, property damage, and hurting people. It's close to the time when folks are going to step in the gap and protect ourselves and each other in the absence of useful government.

Kids his age have fought and defended for most of human history. We have only recently infantilized our kids to the point where they are barely adults in their 20s or even 30s. Kid was clearly trained and knew how to use the weapon, as he used it perfectly to defend himself. All it took for those useless POSs to not get shot was not to attack him. I have zero issue with him putting them down.

I would discourage anyone I know or care about from doing the same because I don't want them at risk. That is my selfish side. But I would be proud of them risking themselves for others.  Kid had every right to be there.  He did not go hunting anyone.  He had his rifle for self defense.  He was cleaning graffiti, rendering aid, and trying to stop rioting arsonists from pushing a dumpster lit on fire towards a gas station.  He threatened no one with his rifle.  He used it to defend himself only when attacked and he had no other choice.

Three people fucked around.  Three people found out.

Lol. When will the army of the Sack finally rise up against this tyranny?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

I think the argument is that his intent should be used to show he went there to create the confrontation and that self defense should not be claimed when you create the conflict.  The whole reason he was there is because he wanted to shoot protestors/looters/rioters/arsonists so he went looking for them with an illegally obtained firearm.

The self defense argument is moot because he was hunting.

Had he shot someone in the act of looting, maybe.  That's not what happened though.  He shot someone who was attacking him. And then shot two more people who attacked him.  It really is that simple.  

He was nonviolent until attacked.  The pedo was pissed Kyle was putting out the fire and started chasing him.  Someone behind Kyle fired a couple shots. When he went for Kyle's gun, as the reporter on scene witnessed and will testify, Kyle shot him.

The second guy hit him with a skateboard in his head and was winding up to do it again when Kyle shot him center mass.

The third guy had a gun.  He put his hands up trying to fake surrender. Then lunged at Kyle, who turned his bicep into spaghetti.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Lol. When will the army of the Sack finally rise up against this tyranny?

You should take your skateboard and swing it at someone carrying an AR.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[Captainant 28395]

22 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And no, that video does not come in. 

apologies, thought the local news spot had the video embedded - here's what the prosecution wanted to include to establish intent to harm but the court did not let them

But don't let me get in the way of your violent masturbatory fantasies over shooting protesters.

[JimmyJames 12271]

24 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You should take your skateboard and swing it at someone carrying an AR.

That would be self defense on my part. Course I wouldn’t be so monumentally stupid enough to be there in the first place like your hero boy Kyle. 

[Brisketexan 106629]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

 

And it's typical for the prohibited person making the purchase to also be charged with conspiracy to violate federal law if they orchestrated the purhcase like rittenhouse did. And another 10 year/$100k penalty if the prohibited person possesses the gun.

We have gun laws. We should be fucking using them.

We do use our gun laws.*

 

*  But mostly against black people.  Because white people are SUPPOSED to have guns.  Black people, not so much.

57 minutes ago, Captainant said:

"When do we get to use the guns???" is really starting to become a more worrying question - especially when the same people asking think that Jan 6 was just a peaceful tour

This.  Setting aside any argument as to the precise legalities.....holy fuck, we have a real fucking problem with not just being okay with the outcome of a situation being "I shot someone dead," we fucking celebrate it.  As a human being, you should see most every situation that results in "guy got shot and killed" as a bad outcome, a failure.  If you can retreat and not suffer harm, then you should avoid shooting and killing someone.  Shooting and killing someone is the absolute last resort, and you shouldn't go out there HOPING you get to do so.

And yes, KR was HOPING he got to do so.  How do we know?  For fuck's sake, he fucking TOLD US, in plain english, that he wished he could go out and shoot people.

42 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

I think the argument is that his intent should be used to show he went there to create the confrontation and that self defense should not be claimed when you create the conflict.  The whole reason he was there is because he wanted to shoot protestors/looters/rioters/arsonists so he went looking for them with an illegally obtained firearm.

The self defense argument is moot because he was hunting.

And this.  He wasn't there to clean up trash and help old ladies cross the street.  He strapped up and went hunting.  How do we know?  Again, he fucking TOLD US that's what he wanted to do.

I really want to go someplace where I can shoot people.

I purposefully illegally obtain a weapon in order to do so.

I purposefully travel to where the people I have professed a desire to shoot are.

I shoot and kill said people.

Man, that's a lot of effort to go through to say "man, I never saw that coming!  I didn't want to shoot anyone, I had no choice!"  Because to say that would be a lie.

[SwAss 105]

53 minutes ago, Bravo said:

That's close to misquoting me as I was just copying and pasting a law discussion over WI self defense laws. It is quoted from here. BTW, entering yourself into a dangerous situation does not void your right to self defense.

https://www.eisenberglaw.org/self-defense-laws-in-wisconsin-common-self-defense-tactics/

Instigating it certainly does void your right to self-defense.  

50 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Had he shot someone in the act of looting, maybe.  That's not what happened though.  He shot someone who was attacking him. And then shot two more people who attacked him.  It really is that simple.  

He was nonviolent until attacked.  The pedo was pissed Kyle was putting out the fire and started chasing him.  Someone behind Kyle fired a couple shots. When he went for Kyle's gun, as the reporter on scene witnessed and will testify, Kyle shot him.

The second guy hit him with a skateboard in his head and was winding up to do it again when Kyle shot him center mass.

The third guy had a gun.  He put his hands up trying to fake surrender. Then lunged at Kyle, who turned his bicep into spaghetti.

You are truly a disgusting POS, you cannot instigate a confrontation and then claim self-defense?  But maybe reality is perceived much differently with your head up your ass. 

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We do use our gun laws.*

 

*  But mostly against black people.  Because white people are SUPPOSED to have guns.  Black people, not so much.

This.  Setting aside any argument as to the precise legalities.....holy fuck, we have a real fucking problem with not just being okay with the outcome of a situation being "I shot someone dead," we fucking celebrate it.  As a human being, you should see most every situation that results in "guy got shot and killed" as a bad outcome, a failure.  If you can retreat and not suffer harm, then you should avoid shooting and killing someone.  Shooting and killing someone is the absolute last resort, and you shouldn't go out there HOPING you get to do so.

And yes, KR was HOPING he got to do so.  How do we know?  For fuck's sake, he fucking TOLD US, in plain english, that he wished he could go out and shoot people.

And this.  He wasn't there to clean up trash and help old ladies cross the street.  He strapped up and went hunting.  How do we know?  Again, he fucking TOLD US that's what he wanted to do.

I really want to go someplace where I can shoot people.

I purposefully illegally obtain a weapon in order to do so.

I purposefully travel to where the people I have professed a desire to shoot are.

I shoot and kill said people.

Man, that's a lot of effort to go through to say "man, I never saw that coming!  I didn't want to shoot anyone, I had no choice!"  Because to say that would be a lie.

The racism-infused double standard in regards to guns and gun violence is a major part of how we are here today as a society.  And it doesn't help to have POS (and likely racists) like Johnny Sac fueling the narrative and logic used to enable such backwardness.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Racism when a white dude shoots three white dudes for attacking him.  You fuckers find racism everywhere, rendering the label meaningless.

Kid was dumb to be there.  But he was helping people and cleaning up.  The new video released today by the FBI shows him repeatedly asking people if they need medical attention.  Had he not been physically attacked, he does not shoot anyone.  Three scumbags attacked him, and he stopped them.

[SwAss 105]

LOL @ POS like Johnny Sack dishing it out because he can't handle a little neg rep for when he posts such utter bullshit.   What a cunt.  

[SwAss 105]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Racism when a white dude shoots three white dudes for attacking him.  You fuckers find racism everywhere, rendering the label meaningless.

Kid was dumb to be there.  But he was helping people and cleaning up.  The new video released today by the FBI shows him repeatedly asking people if they need medical attention.  Had he not been physically attacked, he does not shoot anyone.  Three scumbags attacked him, and he stopped them.

So you don't classify a neo-nazi minded white man attacking a Jew to be racism?  Go fuck yourself.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, SwAss said:

LOL @ POS like Johnny Sack dishing it out because he can't handle a little neg rep for when he posts such utter bullshit.   What a cunt.  

Cry more about negs, pussy.  After you carpet bomb negged me first.

[Brisketexan 106629]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Racism when a white dude shoots three white dudes for attacking him.  You fuckers find racism everywhere, rendering the label meaningless.

Kid was dumb to be there.  But he was helping people and cleaning up.  The new video released today by the FBI shows him repeatedly asking people if they need medical attention.  Had he not been physically attacked, he does not shoot anyone.  Three scumbags attacked him, and he stopped them.

I repeat:

I really want to go someplace where I can shoot people.

I purposefully illegally obtain a weapon in order to do so.

I purposefully travel to where the people I have professed a desire to shoot are.

I shoot and kill said people.

Johnny Sack: AWESOME!  REAL AMERICAN HERO!

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, SwAss said:

So you don't classify a neo-nazi minded white man attacking a Jew to be racism?  Go fuck yourself.  

He attacked no one.  He was attacked first.  And shot his attackers.  No, that's not racism.  No way he knew one of his attackers was Jewish anyway.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[SwAss 105]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Cry more about negs, pussy.  After you carpet bomb negged me first.

I'm not done negging you, fuckface. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I repeat:

I really want to go someplace where I can shoot people.

I purposefully illegally obtain a weapon in order to do so.

I purposefully travel to where the people I have professed a desire to shoot are.

I shoot and kill said people.

Johnny Sack: AWESOME!  REAL AMERICAN HERO!

You left out the little part about them attacking him without justification.

[Bevo 13827]

1 minute ago, SwAss said:

So you don't classify a neo-nazi minded white man attacking a Jew to be racism?  Go fuck yourself.  

As a Jew, I'm not seeing it. Is the defendant a neo-nazi? Did he know one of the attackers was Jewish?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, SwAss said:

I'm not done negging you, fuckface. 

Go ahead.  I'm not the pussy crying about neg reps.

[SwAss 105]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Go ahead.  I'm not the pussy crying about neg reps.

Yet you're acting like the little, spineless bitch.  

[Brisketexan 106629]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

You left out the little part about them attacking him without justification.

A part which -- at best -- turns the situation into an utterly avoidable shitty outcome.

But nope, you think he's an American hero.

If he was batting for anyone but your team, you'd point to my items 1-4 and correctly pillory him as a not-good person intent on doing not-good things and taking numerous steps towards a not-good goal.  

[Brisketexan 106629]

Just now, Bravo said:

say what? how in the hell did he know that crazy ass child rapist was jewish? 

He also didn't know he was a "child rapist," but that fact seems very, very, very relevant to you and Sack.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

A part which -- at best -- turns the situation into an utterly avoidable shitty outcome.

But nope, you think he's an American hero.

If he was batting for anyone but your team, you'd point to my items 1-4 and correctly pillory him as a not-good person intent on doing not-good things and taking numerous steps towards a not-good goal.  

And if he was a black or Mexican guy at Charlottesville who shot three Proud Boys who attacked him under the exact same fact pattern, you'd be typing your War and Peace length defense.

He removed two scumbags from the planet.

[immortal13 4059]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Not to be a downer, but I have a feeling that rittenhouse is gonna get off easy. The judge's rules for the trial are ridiculous and indicate an bias in favor of the defendant.

The people shot and killed by a child who crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm cannot be referred to as "victims", but the defense can frame the victims as "looters", "rioters", and "arsonists". And the defense also gets to show the video of the cops thanking rittenhouse for breaking the law and throwing him a bottle of water, mere minutes before he killed two people - because that will definitely have no influence on the jury amirite??? 

The thin blue line of authoritarianism is going to protect this shitbird and inspire more to act like him.

They were looters and rioters and arsonists...duh. And they were attempting to kill a "child", as you described him. You would make a lousy attorney 

[SwAss 105]

5 minutes ago, Bravo said:

say what? how in the hell did he know that crazy ass child rapist was jewish? 

I was using a classical example of how white-nationalists engage in racism against other white people, its not a new phenomenon  .  

Edited November 2, 2021 by SwAss

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He also didn't know he was a "child rapist," but that fact seems very, very, very relevant to you and Sack.

That's a nice side benefit.  But not relevant to whether he was acting in self defense and should not be admissible unless the state opens the door.  Rosenbaum acting like a psycho on video when Rittenhouse tried to extinguish the dumpster fire will be relevant.  Rosenbaum throwing something at Rittenhouse before the shooting will be relevant.  As will Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and trying to take his gun.  That will be relevant.

[workswithseed 2201]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He also didn't know he was a "child rapist," but that fact seems very, very, very relevant to you and Sack.

Wasn't he not accused but legally a child rapist? 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

Here are the self defense laws in WI. None of this other nonsense matters. It will come down to this and whether or not he was within bounds of these laws:

1. Duty to Retreat. Wisconsin does not impose a “duty to retreat” on the public, but a defendant’s ability to retreat from the situation prior to the use of deadly force will often be considered in self-defense cases, particularly if the defendant was the instigator. Juries are often asked to consider whether the use of deadly force was the only option left available to the defendant or if the defendant had an opportunity to remove themselves from the situation, i.e. retreat, before it escalated. If the defendant did have an ability to retreat and did not do so, a jury is less likely to accept the self-defense argument.
2. The Castle Doctrine. Wisconsin has the Castle Doctrine rule, which falls into self-defense laws. The Castle Doctrine applies if a person is on their own property, such as a home, vehicle, or place of business, and uses deadly force against an intruder. In order for this self-defense argument to work, the intruder must have been present on the property after unlawfully and forcibly entering it. The Castle Doctrine cannot be used against an invited guest, for example. The Castle Doctrine also does not apply if the property owner pursues the intruder off of the property.
3. Stand Your Ground Laws. Stand Your Ground laws are similar to the Castle Doctrine in that they both apply to the use of deadly force on private property. As long as you have a legal right to be in that location, were not the instigator, and don’t provoke the confrontation, and the other party continues to threaten you, you are within your rights to use deadly force under Stand Your Ground laws. The difference between Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine is location. The Castle Doctrine requires the intruder to be inside the property; Stand Your Ground laws do not. Intruders can be outside of homes, businesses, or vehicles. The wrench in this self-defense argument is that Wisconsin does not have a Stand Your Ground law. However, the defense argument can be made that the victim was simply protecting themselves in fear of their life.

1 & 3 seem to apply directly to this new FBI video, you need some mental gymnastics to say otherwise

Does new FBI footage of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting PROVE self defence? ...YOU DECIDE - Bing video

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

At least Rosenbaum died doing what he loved, chasing and assaulting minors.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Wasn't he not accused but legally a child rapist? 

Yes.  Not relevant to Rittenhouse's self defense claim.  Rittenhouse did not know he was a child rapist.  He did know he was a raging nut.