Kyle Rittenhouse

[Anastasis 23481]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

I'm pretty sure if Sark posted on Surly it would be a conflict of interest.

O/U on crowd sourcing measured in days or hours?

['stache 21838]

26 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.

Based on what I saw in the trial, I don't think the prosecution even came close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt this was anything other than self defense.  Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

A bunch of people understand that he wasn't there "protecting the community." It's probably why the jury can't agree on acquittal. He was there to fuck around and many want him to find out.

Edited November 19, 2021 by 'stache

[South Austin 52566]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We have a football team?

[DDD Dad 14347]

4 minutes ago, South Austin said:

At least two situations.

First, the more recent American Revolution, which followed the British government's attempt to disarm the colonists.

Second, a history of supporting citizen militias.

I say this as someone who does not believe that the founders intended for an unconditional and unregulated right to bear arms.

Agreed.  DC v Heller was wrongly decided.

[Azbadlands 109]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

A bunch of people understand that he wasn't there "protecting the community." It's probably why the jury can't agree on acquittal. He was there to fuck around and many want him to find out.

My point is, the prosecution didn't prove squat.  They sure as heck did not prove he was there for anything other than to provide first aid and put out fires.  That's what the jury has to base their verdict on, what they saw in the trial.  Not what everyone in the media or social media says...

[Goredho 17413]

18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If Sark posted here, which thread would he post on?

He’d post on in the old scat site.

[South Austin 52566]

Just now, Azbadlands said:

They sure as heck did not prove he was there for anything other than to provide first aid and put out fires. 

It doesn't matter if the evidence shows nothing other than he went to Kenosha to help old ladies cross the street.  If the jury finds that he intentionally shot any of the four victims then and there and doesn't prove self defense, he's guilty.  You can have the best intentions in your mind of going somewhere with a firearm, but the moment you take someone's life that's all out the window. 

Again, I think he gets acquitted of murder, and maybe is convicted of a lesser charge.

['stache 21838]

4 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

My point is, the prosecution didn't prove squat.  They sure as heck did not prove he was there for anything other than to provide first aid and put out fires.  That's what the jury has to base their verdict on, what they saw in the trial.  Not what everyone in the media or social media says...

There was plenty of evidence of ill motive. You and others act like its so clear, yet a jury is in day 3 or 4 of deliberation, so there are certainly some in that room who don't believe he was just there to help. That very concept is absurd on its face. Blaming the media is just another copout for those who think this kid is some sort of hero. He may very well get acquitted, but again, it's not open and shut as you seem to believe.

Edited November 19, 2021 by 'stache

[Ten Bears 2483]

[South Austin 52566]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

O/U on crowd sourcing measured in days or hours?

You'll be fine.  You post some good shit in the food threads.

[immortal13 4059]

5 minutes ago, South Austin said:

It doesn't matter if the evidence shows nothing other than he went to Kenosha to help old ladies cross the street.  If the jury finds that he intentionally shot any of the four victims then and there and doesn't prove self defense, he's guilty.  You can have the best intentions in your mind of going somewhere with a firearm, but the moment you take someone's life that's all out the window. 

Again, I think he gets acquitted of murder, and maybe is convicted of a lesser charge.

I'm pretty sure he intended to shoot them

[Brisketexan 105273]

You'll be fine.  You post some good shit in the food threads.

And hunting threads. Proof positive that people can be remarkably competent in area X, and stumblefucks in area Y.

I, for example, am a brilliant attorney, hunter, cook, and lover, but I’m a lousy athlete. See, we all have our weak areas.

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

25 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

A lot of young people died defending their communities from Tyrrany in the Revolutionary War  that had just ended in 1783, just a few short years before the Constitution was signed..

That was against a foreign power. Not against protests over the murder of a free American citizen by the American government. That’s not remotely similar at all.

[South Austin 52566]

2 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

I'm pretty sure he intended to shoot them

Thank you Mr. Spicoli.  Then it should come down to whether he's proved self defense, and whether he went to Kenosha in the first place to collect a merit badge shouldn't negate that intent.

[Anastasis 23481]

5 minutes ago, South Austin said:

You'll be fine.  You post some good shit in the food threads.

Oh, I was talking about Sark.  You know the guy that clearly has no professional obligation to the ethical principle of Justice. 

[South Austin 52566]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Oh, I was talking about Sark.  You know the guy that clearly has no professional obligation to the ethical principle of Justice. 

Oh, my bad.  But still, you should be able to stick around Surly for a while.  Probably.  I mean, maybe.

[Anastasis 23481]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I, for example, am a brilliant attorney, hunter, cook, and lover, but I’m a lousy athlete. See, we all have our weak areas.

You forget "extraordinarily good looking". 

[wildcat09 29376]

45 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.

Based on what I saw in the trial, I don't think the prosecution even came close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt this was anything other than self defense.  Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

Well, one reason they're taking so long may be that this isn't what the prosecution has to prove. Under Wisconsin law, the state doesn't have the burden of proving a killing wasn't self defense, the killer has the burden of proving it was.

[JimmyJames 12271]

33 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

A lot of young people died defending their communities from Tyrrany in the Revolutionary War  that had just ended in 1783, just a few short years before the Constitution was signed..

So is Kyle the next George Washington? Seems kinda short and doughy. 

[DDD Dad 14347]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Well, one reason they're taking so long may be that this isn't what the prosecution has to prove. Under Wisconsin law, the state doesn't have the burden of proving a killing wasn't self defense, the killer has the burden of proving it was.

Not a criminal lawyer, but I believe once a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue (by offering evidence sufficient to create a fact issue), the prosecution bears the evidentiary burden to negate that defense to a reasonable certainty.

[JimmyJames 12271]

I’m pretty sure Sark was that Bravo guy who kept bragging about his height and posting photos of his nine inch hands and flipping off a UT diploma.  

[mchookem 16367]

so anyways i'm sure i'm not the first to ask...how come so many 2nd amendment fanboys so easily skip the first three gotdamn words of it, then cream their jeans over the last eight?

[mchookem 16367]

...and Sark would post in the Shart thread. 

[Azbadlands 109]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

There was plenty of evidence of ill motive. You and others act like its so clear, yet a jury is in day 3 or 4 of deliberation, so there are certainly some in that room who don't believe he was just there to help. That very concept is absurd on its face. Blaming the media is just another copout for those who think this kid is some sort of hero. He may very well get acquitted, but again, it's not open and shut as you seem to believe.

Have you thought of the precedent it would set if they find someone guilty of murder, when the prosecution has so little evidence, has done so little to take away any doubt that this was not self defense?  Even the witnesses they brought in did not really support the prosecutions argument and did not do enough to prove that the kid was doing anything other than defending himself. The video doesn't help much either..

Forget about ever trying to use the self defense argument in the future if you can be convicted based on public opinion and rumors...

[wildcat09 29376]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not a criminal lawyer, but I believe once a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue (by offering evidence sufficient to create a fact issue), the prosecution bears the evidentiary burden to negate that defense to a reasonable certainty.

This is from Wisconsin's annotated code for Sec. 939.48:

 

A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st-degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.

Funny enough, Wisconsin courts seem to characterize self defense as a negative defense, which is baffling.

 

[South Austin 52566]

5 minutes ago, mchookem said:

so anyways i'm sure i'm not the first to ask...how come so many 2nd amendment fanboys so easily skip the first three gotdamn words of it, then cream their jeans over the last eight?

Well, it's that, as well as the failure to recognize that the freedoms listed in the First Amendment are not absolute and are the subject of numerous constitutional regulations.  Somehow the Second Amendment is holier than the First. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Azbadlands said:

Have you thought of the precedent it would set if they find someone guilty of murder, when the prosecution has so little evidence, has done so little to take away any doubt that this was not self defense?  Even the witnesses they brought in did not really support the prosecutions argument and did not do enough to prove that the kid was doing anything other than defending himself. The video doesn't help much either..

Forget about ever trying to use the self defense argument in the future if you can be convicted based on public opinion and rumors...

Lol. Yep, if doughboy is convicted for killing 2 people with an AR defending a car dealership dumpster nobody is ever gonna be able to claim self defense again. Got it. 

[South Austin 52566]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not a criminal lawyer, but I believe once a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue (by offering evidence sufficient to create a fact issue), the prosecution bears the evidentiary burden to negate that defense to a reasonable certainty.

That's in Texas.  That burden shifting is not uniform among the states.

[wildcat09 29376]

3 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

Have you thought of the precedent it would set if they find someone guilty of murder, when the prosecution has so little evidence, has done so little to take away any doubt that this was not self defense?  Even the witnesses they brought in did not really support the prosecutions argument and did not do enough to prove that the kid was doing anything other than defending himself. The video doesn't help much either..

Forget about ever trying to use the self defense argument in the future if you can be convicted based on public opinion and rumors...

Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people in American history have been convicted of murder based on less evidence.

[Chad Fuck 17742]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people in American history have been convicted of murder based on less evidence.

Yes, but there was one important distinction between them and ole Kyle.

[DDD Dad 14347]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is from Wisconsin's annotated code for Sec. 939.48:

 

A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st-degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.

Funny enough, Wisconsin courts seem to characterize self defense as a negative defense, which is baffling.

 

At the risk of getting into the weeds, is the "objective threshold" a higher standard than basically a genuine issue of material fact (which is what I presume Texas's standard to be--again, I'm not a criminal lawyer)?

['stache 21838]

7 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

Have you thought of the precedent it would set if they find someone guilty of murder, when the prosecution has so little evidence, has done so little to take away any doubt that this was not self defense?  Even the witnesses they brought in did not really support the prosecutions argument and did not do enough to prove that the kid was doing anything other than defending himself. The video doesn't help much either..

Forget about ever trying to use the self defense argument in the future if you can be convicted based on public opinion and rumors...

First, what a dumb concept that self-defense would no longer be viable. That is absurd. But I'm more worried about setting a precedent that a person can arm themselves, insert themselves into a crowd of people they vehemently hate, then when an altercation predictably ensues, use your weapon to shoot the people you hate and claim self defense. Don't start no shit, won't be no shit. That is the precedent that is scary. It'll have no effect on legitimate cases of self defense.

Edited November 19, 2021 by 'stache

[Brisketexan 105273]

Well, it's that, as well as the failure to recognize that the freedoms listed in the First Amendment are not absolute and are the subject of numerous constitutional regulations.  Somehow the Second Amendment is holier than the First. 

And don’t get me started on the 4th. The overlap of “no exceptions!” 2nd amendment fanboys and “back the blue!” excusing cops voiding the 4th amendment is significant. For so many, the misread second amendment is the only constitutional right that exists.

Nevermind that the BOR isn’t a grant of rights at all. It’s a clarification of rights that are particularly protected from govt action.

[DDD Dad 14347]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And don’t get me started on the 4th. The overlap of “no exceptions!” 2nd amendment fanboys and “back the blue!” excusing cops voiding the 4th amendment is significant. For so many, the misread second amendment is the only constitutional right that exists.

Nevermind that the BOR isn’t a grant of rights at all. It’s a clarification of rights that are particularly protected from govt action.

Can we get back to flinging shit again?  This high level constitutional law discussion is boring.

[wildcat09 29376]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

At the risk of getting into the weeds, is the "objective threshold" a higher standard than basically a genuine issue of material fact (which is what I presume Texas's standard to be--again, I'm not a criminal lawyer)?

Also not a criminal lawyer, but I don't think so. That reads like it requires more than simply raising it as a fact issue. 

It's been a long time since Crim Law, but if I recall correctly, self defense was traditionally an affirmative defense and the party asserting it had to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. A lot of states have modified that by statute (including Texas), but I don't see anything in Wisconsin's code changing it (though I didn't look that hard). 

[DDD Dad 14347]

Also not a criminal lawyer, but I don't think so. That reads like it requires more than simply raising it as a fact issue. 
It's been a long time since Crim Law, but if I recall correctly, self defense was traditionally an affirmative defense and the party asserting it had to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. A lot of states have modified that by statute (including Texas), but I don't see anything in Wisconsin's code changing it (though I didn't look that hard). 

I assume you meant to say that it is a higher standard. From what I could glean looking at the statute online (which appeared to have a few annotations) the prosecution bears the risk of negating self defense once the issue has been successfully raised. I didn’t dig any deeper though and there didn’t seem to be any annotations to explain what quantum or quality of evidence was necessary to raise the issue successfully.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Can we get back to flinging shit again?  This high level constitutional law discussion is boring.

 

[Azbadlands 109]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

First, what a dumb concept that self-defense would no longer be viable. That is absurd. But I'm more worried about setting a precedent that a person can arm themselves, insert themselves into a crowd of people they vehemently hate, then when an altercation predictably ensues, use your weapon to shoot the people you hate and claim self defense. Don't start no shit, won't be no shit. That is the precedent that is scary. It'll have no effect on legitimate cases of self defense.

Had the government / Cops did their job, the whole situation probably could have been avoided altogether..  I mean it was a dumb concept also to let people  say they were  "peacefully protesting" back then when they were clearly looting, rioting, destroying businesses, and private property.   They weren't as out of hand that specific night as they had been the nights before, but surely you can understand why people woild get frustrated enough to want to do something to try to protect their community when the government and police force were not?  The whole situation was messed up honestly...

[jimmyjazz 46092]

Let's get back to more important things.  I'd like to get some advice on smoking a turkey.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just checked in on the DT thread. Apparently what’s taking so long is some of the jurors are being threatened by the “leftist” mob so they can’t properly acquit poor Kyle. 

Bwaahaahaaa. Excellent Smithers. The surly liberal cabal strikes again!

[BrickHorn 18274]

13 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have to admit, it's fascinating to see someone take on any and all comers in a profession that is specifically trained to argue.

It’s like if a single punching bag was brave enough to pick a fight with Ali, Frazier, Tyson, Fury, and Foreman all at once.

[Captainant 27726]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Just checked in on the DT thread. Apparently what’s taking so long is some of the jurors are being threatened by the “leftist” mob so they can’t properly acquit poor Kyle. 

Bwaahaahaaa. Excellent Smithers. The surly liberal cabal strikes again!

well they have such reputable sources as breitbart! There's no way that publication would knowingly publish lies and disinformation

[elfenix 34331]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

are particularly protected from govt action.

ninth amendment sobs in the corner

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This wait must be excruciating for poor Kyle, I hope it lasts. 

I really don't think he minds. People are fussing all over him in a way that relives the rush that many 17 year olds enjoy and one he likely didn't have in Antioch, Illinois as a high schooler. It's not like 17 year olds are risk averse and there is an element of optimism to that; the old 'nothing is going to happen to me' that parents and older folks with more experience and foresight see as unwise. I suppose he could swing back and forth from doom and despair to the elation and confidence, but he's got people around him that would likely temper some of that if they had any experience with teens.

[washparkhorn 9939]

Verdict reached. Jury coming back. (according to the judge).

[South Austin 52566]

NY Times reporting the jury has reached a verdict.

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Verdict reached. Jury coming back. (according to the judge).

Heart rates for both sides going way way up. 
 

Glad it’s not me. 

[Brisketexan 105273]

Heart rates for both sides going way way up. 
 
Glad it’s not me. 

100%

[South Austin 52566]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Heart rates for both sides going way way up. 
 

Glad it’s not me. 

I'm guessing Kyle's posting in the shart thread later.

[conVINCEd 21469]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Heart rates for both sides going way way up. 
 

Glad it’s not me. 

Avoid shooting 3 people and you don’t have to worry about it being you.