Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[workswithseed 2033]

[Dutchrudder 11103]

Shooting someone after they reach for your gun is one of the most common cop defenses out there. That should be pretty well settled precedent in every state.

[JBJ 3647]

He's trying to rehab the situation, but he's getting frustrated at the autism and the austism is not understanding what's going on and just getting frustrated back.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

To be fair, he was probably drew the short straw and forced to bring this shitty case.  He had no choice. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

Congrats, You've created a hostile witness, beefy. 

[Moby Ric 2058]

JFC This guy.  Judge has to bail him out he is so bad.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

Someone get that man a sandwich

[52-80 19066]

if there's 1 thing rittenhouse should be absolutely be convicted of, its thinking burgundy is a good color for a dress shirt.

[JBJ 3647]

15 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Congrats, You've created a hostile witness, beefy. 

It is getting better now.  The attorney didn't understand that whatever autism/social disorder was not responding normally to hostility, but maybe he figured it out.

Edited November 9, 2021 by JBJ

[workswithseed 2033]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

To be fair, he was probably drew the short straw and forced to bring this shitty case.  He had no choice. 

I feel like this case is a game of limbo for the state. How low can you go!

[ChickenSandwich 9797]

Witness is incredible 

[davidg 4025]

I'm about 30 minutes behind in the stream and LOL at the judge looking at a cookie order book during a recess of the photog guy.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

9 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

if there's 1 thing rittenhouse should be absolutely be convicted of, its thinking burgundy is a good color for a dress shirt.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

51 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yeah.  If I am carrying a holstered pistol.  And someone I don't know tries to snatch it from me, I think I don't have to sit there and let them and hope they don't shoot me with it.

That seems like a textbook threat that would warrant a self-defense response. If person A is not pointing the gun at person B and person B attempts to take the weapon from person A, seems like the only reasonable inference person A could make is that person B is attempting to do person A harm with said weapon.

The media coverage of this trial may be the only thing slightly more fascinating than the actual performance in the courtroom. Feels like its entered "mostly peaceful protests" realm.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Harrison Bergeron

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

That seems like a textbook threat that would warrant a self-defense response. If person A is not pointing the gun at person B and person B attempts to take the weapon from person A, seems like the only reasonable inference person A could make is that person B is attempting to do person A harm with said weapon.

The media coverage of this trial may be the only thing slightly more fascinating than the actual performance in the courtroom. Feels like its entered "mostly peaceful protests" realm.

They did the same bullshit with Michael Brown and with Trayvon Martin (using a picture of him when he was 12). Deliberately evil shit they do.

[52-80 19066]

19 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Witness is incredible 

this should be made into a Steven Avery type TV show.  i cant believe this entertainment is free.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They did the same bullshit with Michael Brown and with Trayvon Martin (using a picture of him when he was 12). Deliberately evil shit they do.

And virtually every one of these cases that rise to some sort of "national dialogue." It is deliberately evil because it is divisive and creates a ignorant public. As you noted previously, there is a reason why those that identify themselves as "very liberal" or "liberal" believe there are thousands of unarmed black men killed by police every year. Even "very conservative" people reported they think there are hundreds.

The CR crazies are telling: they had so much emotional hysterics invested in this case driven by deliberate misinformation they cannot process the actual trial testimony, which is why they've devolved into the usual bogey men and histrionics.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Harrison Bergeron

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

And virtually every one of these cases that rise to some sort of "national dialogue." It is deliberately evil because it is divisive and creates a ignorant public. The CR crazies are telling: they had so much emotional hysterics invested in this case driven by deliberate misinformation they cannot process the actual trial testimony, which is why they've devolved into the usual bogey men and histrionics.

My favorite is the the Democrat DA is intentionally trying to throw the case.

[52-80 19066]

Newman: "So you had your camera on that night"

 

"Uh...thats how I wouldve gotten those photos".

 

LOL this is so passive-aggressive

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

6 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

this should be made into a Steven Avery type TV show.  i cant believe this entertainment is free.

Where have you been hiding ... they don't do documentaries on innocent people.

[Satoshi 129]

3 hours ago, Bravo said:

that is straight up antifa tactics

Captainantifa

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Well I guess case closed then. Granny just clinched it for team Kyle the hero and his DT sycophants. Lol. 
 

You guys and your self reinforcing circle jerk are pretty funny where you focus on whatever fact you thinks fits your narrative, no matter how irrelevant it may be, and spin it into JUST DROP THE CASE! 

Why are you still hanging out on this thread? Even Captainantifa realized it was a lost cause. Unless he really got apprehended harassing those jurors this morning. 

[Carl Spackler 3461]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

I would disagree. What matters is what the person believed in the heat of the moment. Strip away all the other stuff (which yeah makes it more clear), and it may have still been justified. Put yourself in KR's shoes. Say you and a stranger are standing still alone in a room. You're carrying property on your person, which has the potential for bodily harm or death (why you have it on your person for this scenario is irrelevant). The stranger tries to take that property from you. What are the options at that point? A) He uses it against you, or B) he doesn't. The only way to find out is to let him take it from you and hope for the best? I mean good luck, hope it works out for you. You have the right to life and to defend yourself.

Fair enough.  However, while I'm no expert on Wisconsin law, I suspect that self-defense in that state is not a purely subjective standard, as you suggest in your second sentence. 

Also, I disagree that those are the only two possible options in the hypothetical you posed.  There is always the possibility that the person taking the property would simply drop it, fling it aside, etc.  You may roll your eyes at that, but legally and factually-speaking, there are other options in that hypothetical.  And that's why the other factual evidence relating to what Rosenbaum did before the shooting (e.g., the prior threat, the chasing, etc.) is so critical.  That evidence strongly suggests that Rosenbaum was not simply going to drop the weapon or fling it aside.  That's why, in my opinion, that other evidence is so important to the self-defense claim.  

Let me pose a counter-hypothetical to you that is close to the one in your post.  You're in a public place.  You (legally) have a firearm in your hand.  An unarmed acquaintance of yours (not a friend, but not a total unknown) comes up and (stupidly) tries to take the firearm out of your hand.  He has never threatened you.  He has never done anything to make you or anyone else think he intends to do you harm.  Do you think you would have the right to shoot him under those circumstances?    

Like I said in my first post on this thread, I'm not trying to stir up shit.  I'm legitimately trying to understand the evidence relating to Rittenhouse's shooting of Rosenbaum because from what I've been able to read about this case, it appears that most, if not all, of the other charges hinge to some degree on whether that initial shooting was lawful.  So I appreciate all the posts that have talked about that evidence.

 

  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Dontshootrude said:

The reporting on this story reinforces the polling regarding the trust in media:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-dips-second-lowest-record.aspx

It's because Rittenhouse is not on their team, therefore he's an enemy, therefore he is a murderer and not acting in self defense.

So many people would say "oh no he brought a gun across state lines" or "oh no he wasn't old enough to have it" as if that matters in a self defense trial. You could have an illegal stolen M-60 with serial numbers scratched off, that wouldn't mean you are not justified in using it in self defense. You'll catch charges for obliterating the serial, having a stolen gun, etc etc, but it won't change a self defense charge to murder in and of it's self.

I've seen pretty much all angles of the Rittenhouse incident, he was clearly being provoked to shoot in every single instance. If you don't like him, what he was doing there, or his political beliefs, it doesn't change the definition of self defense.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Satoshi said:

Captainantifa

Why are you still hanging out on this thread? Even Captainantifa realized it was a lost cause. Unless he really got apprehended harassing those jurors this morning. 

Um. I’ve been tagged twice in this thread today alone. Once by you. Member?
 

Also once by bravo who apparently has no other job except to watch this trial and help the DT circle jerk keep on keeping on.

[Carl Spackler 3461]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Correct. That's the cornerstone of every law regarding self defense.

Actually, that's not really correct.  From what I understand, the self-defense statutes in most states (maybe all) are analyzed according to an objective standard.  While the defendant's subjective thoughts and beliefs at the time of the shooting are certainly taken into account, the defendant typically must still satisfy an objective standard, i.e., the defendant's belief that his life was in danger must have been objectively reasonable.   

[Bevo 13493]

10 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Fair enough.  However, while I'm no expert on Wisconsin law, I suspect that self-defense in that state is not a purely subjective standard, as you suggest in your second sentence. 

Also, I disagree that those are the only two possible options in the hypothetical you posed.  There is always the possibility that the person taking the property would simply drop it, fling it aside, etc.  You may roll your eyes at that, but legally and factually-speaking, there are other options in that hypothetical.  And that's why the other factual evidence relating to what Rosenbaum did before the shooting (e.g., the prior threat, the chasing, etc.) is so critical.  That evidence strongly suggests that Rosenbaum was not simply going to drop the weapon or fling it aside.  That's why, in my opinion, that other evidence is so important to the self-defense claim.  

Let me pose a counter-hypothetical to you that is close to the one in your post.  You're in a public place.  You (legally) have a firearm in your hand.  An unarmed acquaintance of yours (not a friend, but not a total unknown) comes up and (stupidly) tries to take the firearm out of your hand.  He has never threatened you.  He has never done anything to make you or anyone else think he intends to do you harm.  Do you think you would have the right to shoot him under those circumstances?    

Like I said in my first post on this thread, I'm not trying to stir up shit.  I'm legitimately trying to understand the evidence relating to Rittenhouse's shooting of Rosenbaum because from what I've been able to read about this case, it appears that most, if not all, of the other charges hinge to some degree on whether that initial shooting was lawful.  So I appreciate all the posts that have talked about that evidence.

 

  

 

Would you really allow a stranger who is attacking you to take a gun out of your hands? I find that incredible. Most if not all well-intentioned people would back up with hands in the air.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Bevo

[huge 3788]

2 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Actually, that's not really correct.  From what I understand, the self-defense statutes in most states (maybe all) are analyzed according to an objective standard.  While the defendant's subjective thoughts and beliefs at the time of the shooting are certainly taken into account, the defendant typically must still satisfy an objective standard, i.e., the defendant's belief that his life was in danger must have been objectively reasonable.   

Well in this case one of the deceased said "I want to kill you" or something to that effect.  I think that is a fact introduced as evidence?

[Carl Spackler 3461]

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

 

Would you really allow a stranger who is attacking you to take a gun out of your hands? I find that incredible. Most if not all well-intentioned people would back up with hands in the air.

Nope, I think you're mis-reading or misunderstanding what I've posted.  Obviously, the particular circumstances are important -- I think we can all agree on that.  If a stranger is "attacking" me (as you stated in your post), i.e., he has done or said things prior to attempting to take the gun from me and has adopted an openly hostile attitude toward me, etc., then I would agree that the law allows me to defend myself with deadly force. 

But if the stranger just tries to take my firearm with no prior threats, no prior indicia of hostility, etc., then I think the law probably requires me to do something less than kill the guy.  I think in those circumstances I would maintain possession of my firearm and disengage out of the reach of the other person.  (That's why the evidence that Rosenbaum chased and cornered Rittenhouse is critical -- Rittenhouse will argue that he had attempted to disengage but now had nowhere else he could turn, and Rosenbaum was attempting to take his firearm.)  

You might ask:  What if the stranger doesn't allow me to disengage or persists in attempting to take the gun even after I've backed away?  Well, now the circumstances have changed, haven't they?  Now my basis for employing deadly force is a lot stronger than it was previously.  That's why I say that the particular circumstances are important.  

[Carl Spackler 3461]

9 minutes ago, huge said:

Well in this case one of the deceased said "I want to kill you" or something to that effect.  I think that is a fact introduced as evidence?

Yeah, there was some discussion of that above, and I agree that is an important fact which, combined with the other evidence, may very well support a self-defense finding.

[MillerEP 30339]

37 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Fair enough.  However, while I'm no expert on Wisconsin law, I suspect that self-defense in that state is not a purely subjective standard, as you suggest in your second sentence. 

Also, I disagree that those are the only two possible options in the hypothetical you posed.  There is always the possibility that the person taking the property would simply drop it, fling it aside, etc.  You may roll your eyes at that, but legally and factually-speaking, there are other options in that hypothetical.  And that's why the other factual evidence relating to what Rosenbaum did before the shooting (e.g., the prior threat, the chasing, etc.) is so critical.  That evidence strongly suggests that Rosenbaum was not simply going to drop the weapon or fling it aside.  That's why, in my opinion, that other evidence is so important to the self-defense claim.  

Let me pose a counter-hypothetical to you that is close to the one in your post.  You're in a public place.  You (legally) have a firearm in your hand.  An unarmed acquaintance of yours (not a friend, but not a total unknown) comes up and (stupidly) tries to take the firearm out of your hand.  He has never threatened you.  He has never done anything to make you or anyone else think he intends to do you harm.  Do you think you would have the right to shoot him under those circumstances?    

Like I said in my first post on this thread, I'm not trying to stir up shit.  I'm legitimately trying to understand the evidence relating to Rittenhouse's shooting of Rosenbaum because from what I've been able to read about this case, it appears that most, if not all, of the other charges hinge to some degree on whether that initial shooting was lawful.  So I appreciate all the posts that have talked about that evidence.

 

  

To your first point, I actually did address those possibilities. Option A was that they use it against you, whether that's turning on you, or just beating you over the head with it, etc.  Option B) was "they don't use it against you." Which accounts for all the possibilities you listed, all the way up to dropping it and then pounding your head over and over on the ground. I acknowledge that "they do nothing" is a possible outcome. The point was all of the options a) and option b) occur AFTER they have taken your property from you, and that's a dangerous gamble because it can mean up to the loss of your life.

As for your second paragraph, that adds a bunch of extra complexities and specific nuances which I intentionally left out of my scenario. That just muddies the water.  If you want to bring up any and every possible scenario under the sun then the answer you get will vary. To answer your direct question though my answer would be in that case "it depends." That's a judgment call I'd have to make at the moment.

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by MillerEP

[Johnny Sack 8397]

[Johnny Sack 8397]

[Satoshi 129]

18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Having a Spectrum-y son, this hits close to home. 

[workswithseed 2033]

Someone filmed the jury it seems.

[Carl Spackler 3461]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

To your first point, I actually did address those possibilities. Option A was that they use it against you, whether that's turning on you, or just beating you over the head with it, etc.  Option B) was "they don't use it against you." Which accounts for all the possibilities you listed, all the way up to dropping it and then pounding your head over and over on the ground. I acknowledge that "they do nothing" is a possible outcome. The point was all of the options a) and option b) occur AFTER they have taken your property from you, and that's a dangerous gamble because it can mean up to the loss of your life.

As for your second paragraph, that adds a bunch of extra complexities and specific nuances which I intentionally left out of my scenario. That just muddies the water.  If you want to bring up any and every possible scenario under the sun then the answer you get will vary. To answer your direct question though my answer would be in that case "it depends." That's a judgment call I'd have to make at the moment.

 

1.  You are right.  I didn't read your prior post very well.  I should have pointed out that the two possibilities you mention aren't the entire gamut of potential outcomes in that situation.  Another potential outcome is that you rebuff the stranger's efforts to take the firearm and you maintain control of it.  The two possibilities you mentioned are the potential outcomes (in general) IF and only if the stranger succeeds in taking the firearm.  Like you, I wouldn't want to relinquish my weapon and risk finding out that the stranger isn't favorably inclined toward me.  So I'm doing everything I can to maintain control of the firearm.  If it gets to the point where I have a reasonable belief that he intends to do me harm and my efforts to disengage are being thwarted -- then I think I've got a good basis to use deadly force to protect myself.  

2.  The "extra complexities" and "specific nuances" could be the difference between a viable self-defense claim and a failed one.  The particular facts and circumstances matter.  Rittenhouse shoots an unarmed Rosenbaum simply because Rosenbaum tries to grab his weapon (no threat, no chase, no cornering, etc.)?  Almost certainly not self defense.  Rittenhouse shoots Rosenbaum after the latter threatened his life, chased him, threw objects at him, cornered him, and then tried to grab Rittenhouse's weapon?  Very good chance it's self-defense.  

I certainly understand where you're coming from.

 

[George 487]

So can y’all elaborate a little on the self own with autistic guy? What happened?

[Incredulity 11532]

19 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Someone filmed the jury it seems

https://twitter.com/Johnmcurtis/status/1457343779833360389?s=20

Cool, Cool/Surly Leftists 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Incredulity

[Incredulity 11532]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

this should be a mistrial. they wont ever come back and try this case again. 

 

 

A mistrial is what these scumbags want at this point.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Today's headline on NBC News. That's the takeaway from today headline.

 

The media is an enemy.  They need to lose their Sullivan protection and get the shit sued out of them for bullshit like this.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

NBC News: 1940s era Jewish German citizens leave two star review for their free state provided resorts 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[Passive Aggressive Coach 87]

3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Newman: "So you had your camera on that night"

 

"Uh...thats how I wouldve gotten those photos".

 

LOL this is so passive-aggressive

I like this guy's style. 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

1 hour ago, Carl Spackler said:

1.  You are right.  I didn't read your prior post very well.  I should have pointed out that the two possibilities you mention aren't the entire gamut of potential outcomes in that situation.  Another potential outcome is that you rebuff the stranger's efforts to take the firearm and you maintain control of it.  The two possibilities you mentioned are the potential outcomes (in general) IF and only if the stranger succeeds in taking the firearm.  Like you, I wouldn't want to relinquish my weapon and risk finding out that the stranger isn't favorably inclined toward me.  So I'm doing everything I can to maintain control of the firearm.  If it gets to the point where I have a reasonable belief that he intends to do me harm and my efforts to disengage are being thwarted -- then I think I've got a good basis to use deadly force to protect myself.  

2.  The "extra complexities" and "specific nuances" could be the difference between a viable self-defense claim and a failed one.  The particular facts and circumstances matter.  Rittenhouse shoots an unarmed Rosenbaum simply because Rosenbaum tries to grab his weapon (no threat, no chase, no cornering, etc.)?  Almost certainly not self defense.  Rittenhouse shoots Rosenbaum after the latter threatened his life, chased him, threw objects at him, cornered him, and then tried to grab Rittenhouse's weapon?  Very good chance it's self-defense.  

I certainly understand where you're coming from.

You're basically trying to paint a hypothetical where a guy comes into a store, puts a weapon in the clerk's face and demands all the money from the til. You're asking the clerk to ponder whether his intent is the do a quick count to make sure the cash matches the receipts before returning all the money and wishing you a good day.

[Carl Spackler 3461]

11 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

You're basically trying to paint a hypothetical where a guy comes into a store, puts a weapon in the clerk's face and demands all the money from the til. You're asking the clerk to ponder whether his intent is the do a quick count to make sure the cash matches the receipts before returning all the money and wishing you a good day.

No, not really.

[Deej 76510]

31 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Today's headline on NBC News. That's the takeaway from today headline.

 

"Richard Ramirez almost killed by angry mob as he tried to flee."

[Incredulity 11532]

2 minutes ago, Deej said:

"Richard Ramirez almost killed by angry mob as he tried to flee."

**mostly peaceful mob

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

The media is an enemy.  They need to lose their Sullivan protection and get the shit sued out of them for bullshit like this.  

Being a trust fund baby wannabe little Hitler who doesn’t understand the law is not a good look sack. Grow up.

The enemy is you. Not the media.

Edited November 10, 2021 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

Today's headline on NBC News. That's the takeaway from today headline.

 

Sorry the truth upsets your weak little mind.  You should check out newsmax to make you feel better.

[Hunt Stevenson 41]

The evidence is clear.  Self defense.  Our media sucks. 

[blacklab 11841]

if you had a post deleted take it as a warning. 

if you're going to troll/make personal attacks/complain or brag about rep you will be taking some time off

[immortal13 4059]

15 minutes ago, blacklab said:

if you had a post deleted take it as a warning. 

if you're going to troll/make personal attacks/complain or brag about rep you will be taking some time off

Is calling everyone in DT cunts a personal attack? Seems like it is