Kyle Rittenhouse

[B00M 6280]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Yikes.

 

That's hilarious but I think the whole case hinges on what led up to rosenbaum (1st victim/attacker) getting shot. From what I understand this is also where we have the least video evidence..?

 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

8 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Just googled self-defense/Wisconsin.  Establishing the hypotheticals that would have led to an optimal non-death outcome would seem to a good way to show a jury the various ways that the accused was provoking an attack or could have avoided provoking an attack.    

 

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

In what you quoted it outlines ways in which one could provoke an attack yet still retain the privilege of both a) self-defense and b) deadly force in self defense. This seems much more germane to the case (is this why you posted it?) and I am not seeing much to support the point that this is why it’s a good legal gambit to say, “If X would never have done Y than Z wouldn’t have happened” especially when you have all these other auxiliary actions (running away, who pointed the gun at whomever first, etc.) that further compound the butterfly effect.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, B00M said:

If kyle simply having the open carried rifle provoked all of this, wouldn't other people there that night have been attacked too? It's very possible he did say or do something to provoke it (which may mean he loses his right to self defense), but the simple act of open carrying wasn't it.

The simple act of doing a legal, or legal act, in context, could provoke any action.  Depends on the context.

Given what we should expect from this case with what we know, finding that a white kid with a weapon provoking anything is set at a pretty high bar. 

[Bevo14 8272]

13 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Seems like it didn’t work out for the leftist losers on hand who chose to attack an innocent kid without provocation.  They counted on being able to attack innocent people without repercussions.  They got used to doing it all summer.  They counter wrong that night.  They fucked around.  They found out.  Now we have this embarrassing political show trial that even the nutty cabal in the cloak room can hardly defend and Kyle is about to sue the shit out of our crappy media for slander.  And will deserve every dime just like Sandman did.  

Civilians that feel a need to walk around in public with guns come across as weak and scared of the world. That or they're looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.  Neither is good.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Bevo14

[Fud 9545]

Have we talked about the most important part of the trial yet, the firearms and toolmark examiner?

Spoiler

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

22 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The simple act of doing a legal, or legal act, in context, could provoke any action.  Depends on the context.

Given what we should expect from this case with what we know, finding that a white kid with a weapon provoking anything is set at a pretty high bar. 

It has to be "unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her".  I don't see how mere open carrying by a 17 year old is unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke an attack.

Unless your argument is that open carrying is more provocative by a 17 year old than it would be an 18 year old.  Which begs the question -- did Rosenbaum know his age?  And does the right to self defense change if Rittenhouse was 4 months older that night and 18?  I don't see how that could be the case.   There is also an open question under the statute he's charged with whether it even applies to long rifles.  It is a confusing statute as the judge has said and he's going to revisit the motion to dismiss that charge.  It may, as written, only prohibit 16 and 17 year olds from carrying handguns and short barrel rifles.

Unlawful conduct likely to provoke a response would be pointing a gun at someone who wasn't attacking you.

[Captainant 27405]

Call me crazy, but open carrying at a protest/riot/civil unrest is pretty goddamn provocative. If rittenhouse was black he would've gotten a less cordial greeting from the cops than "here's some water, stay safe" because nobody travels 20 miles to brandish a rifle and troll protesters with good intentions. 

Hell, from the testimony given in the trial it's clear that rittenhouse got extra attention from the crowd specifically because of his openly carried rifle. 

I have zero doubt that this judge is going to give this poor misunderstood child the benefit of the doubt and drop as many charges as he can. Cops protect their own. He may be a baby wannabe cop, but he's licked enough boot to get the discount rate.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Call me crazy, but open carrying at a protest/riot/civil unrest is pretty goddamn provocative. If rittenhouse was black he would've gotten a less cordial greeting from the cops than "here's some water, stay safe" because nobody travels 20 miles to brandish a rifle and troll protesters with good intentions. 

Hell, from the testimony given in the trial it's clear that rittenhouse got extra attention from the crowd specifically because of his openly carried rifle. 

I have zero doubt that this judge is going to give this poor misunderstood child the benefit of the doubt and drop as many charges as he can. Cops protect their own. He may be a baby wannabe cop, but he's licked enough boot to get the discount rate.

Lots of people were open carrying that night.  It's on video.  That does not mean if you threaten to kill them if you get them alone, chase them, corner them, and try and take their gun away they lose their right to self defense when they shoot you in response.

[David Dennison 18646]

20 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It has to be "unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her".  I don't see how mere open carrying by a 17 year old is unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke an attack.

Unless your argument is that open carrying is more provocative by a 17 year old than it would be an 18 year old.  Which begs the question -- did Rosenbaum know his age?  And does the right to self defense change if Rittenhouse was 4 months older that night and 18?  I don't see how that could be the case.   There is also an open question under the statute he's charged with whether it even applies to long rifles.  It is a confusing statute as the judge has said and he's going to revisit the motion to dismiss that charge.  It may, as written, only prohibit 16 and 17 year olds from carrying handguns and short barrel rifles.

Unlawful conduct likely to provoke a response would be pointing a gun at someone who wasn't attacking you.

It might not be unlawful, but there aren't many things more provocative than walking around with a gun for everyone to see.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It might not be unlawful, but there aren't many things more provocative than walking around with a gun for everyone to see.

I don't care for it either.  But I certainly would not assault them for merely doing so.

[Captainant 27405]

13 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't care for it either.  But I certainly would not assault them for merely doing so.

During the course of the trial testimony, there were multiple recollections from witnesses of rittenhouse egging on the crowd and trolling them as they yelled at him for carrying a rifle into a protect. I don't argue that he has made his split-second self defense case in the same was that zimmerman did in his case, but there is considerable evidence and testimony that rittenhouse was doing more than putting on band-aids and cleaning up graffiti.

And I agree that it doesn't justify assaulting him, but cmon man, use your brain here for a second. If you travel 20 miles to break curfew and illegally carry a rifle, you're not exactly being put into a dangerous situation by others. He inserted himself into a situation that he had no right to be in, despite yall's backslapping about curfews and emergency ordinances, only to use a feloniously acquired rifle to kill two people.

[DigglerontheHoof 21044]

24 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't care for it either.  But I certainly would not assault them for merely doing so.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Unless your argument is that open carrying is more provocative by a 17 year old than it would be an 18 year old. 

Nope, just making the argument that the context of any person carrying a firearm could play into the issue of provocation.

I'm going to give lots of leeway to a police officer who sees someone brandishing a firearm, depending on the context.  I'll give less leeway to a non-uniformed civilian running into a high stress situation where others are brandishing weapons or the police are involved in crowd control. 

This is a case about specific laws, but it's also, a case about vigilantism in general. 

vigilante:  a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

vigilante carlstroem:

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

On 11/5/2021 at 12:25 PM, Bravo said:

boogaloo boys are an anarchists group. they hate all govt and especially the police. Read the anti defamation league's description. definitely not a Proud Boys type group.

https://www.adl.org/boogaloo

 

The word “anarchist” doesn’t appear in that description. The Republican Party is an anti-government extremist movement. The Boogaloo Boys are a far-right group, they took part in the Jan 6 insurrection, and they didn’t attend George Floyd protests to protect the protesters. The attended in order to commit acts of violence that would be blamed on the protesters. 

[David Dennison 18646]

11 minutes ago, Bravo said:

You're so wrong. They literally ran security for BLM protestors in several protests. 

"They protected the park, walked with us when we were marching and protesting; they walked people to their cars," said Donovan Hobson, a protester and livestreamer.

"A lot of them were people who were just protesting and realized we didn't have any security. They stepped up and realized (protesters) needed someone to look after them."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boogaloo-bois-or-protest-protectors-louisville-fbi-arrests-2-men-for-threatening-police/ar-BB1dBrnr

 

Benjamin Ryan Teeter, one of two boogalooers charged in September with attempting to provide material support to Hamas, identified himself on social media as a “left anarchist.”  There are also a few ties between boogalooers and left-leaning pro-gun groups. 

https://www.adl.org/boogaloo

You left out some stuff.

One important subculture that influenced the boogaloo movement is the “chan” subculture common to forums like 4chan, with its emphasis on memes, trolling and deliberate irreverence.  Another important subculture was America’s hardcore firearms subculture (a small percentage of Americans own a large portion of the total firearms in the country), itself closely linked to the single-issue RKBA (right to keep and bear arms) movement. 

Even more influential have been several minimalist government philosophies.  These include libertarianism (which promotes individual freedoms and seeks minimal government), anarchocapitalism (which seeks the removal of central governments but emphasizes private property and the free market), voluntaryism (which advocates all relationships be based on mutual consent), and minarchism (which seeks a minimal government that performs only certain specified functions). 

Of the two, libertarianism and anarchocapitalism are the most influential within the boogaloo movement. Many boogalooers strongly support Jo Jorgenson, the 2020 Libertarian Party candidate for president.  Jorgenson herself appeared on a boogaloo-related podcast in the summer of 2020.  Spike Cohen, the party’s vice-presidential nominee, also has had ties to boogalooers.  Anarchocapitalist (or “ancap”) references and imagery are also very common among boogalooers. 

[wildcat09 29213]

Oh cool, the sock account is promoting the boogaloo boys. 

[David Dennison 18646]

11 minutes ago, Bravo said:

They essentially want no govt and hate the police. They have some wacky ass members who seem to share views of far left and far right groups. I think anyone looking at them objectively knowing anything about them and their membership and even ties to Hamas cannot just throw them into a far right group.

Nor can anyone looking at them objectively just throw them into a far left group.

[wildcat09 29213]

Stop engaging with the troll who promotes the boog for lulz.

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

You're so wrong. They literally ran security for BLM protestors in several protests. 

"They protected the park, walked with us when we were marching and protesting; they walked people to their cars," said Donovan Hobson, a protester and livestreamer.

"A lot of them were people who were just protesting and realized we didn't have any security. They stepped up and realized (protesters) needed someone to look after them."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boogaloo-bois-or-protest-protectors-louisville-fbi-arrests-2-men-for-threatening-police/ar-BB1dBrnr

 

Benjamin Ryan Teeter, one of two boogalooers charged in September with attempting to provide material support to Hamas, identified himself on social media as a “left anarchist.”  There are also a few ties between boogalooers and left-leaning pro-gun groups. 

https://www.adl.org/boogaloo

.

Quote

An officer was gunned down. The killer was a ‘boogaloo boy’ using nearby peaceful protests as cover, feds say.

As protests gripped Oakland on May 29, a white van pulled up outside a federal courthouse. A door slid open, and a man peppered the two security officers outside with bullets, killing one and wounding the other.

For a little over a week, the crime was a mystery. Was it tied to the protests just blocks away? Even after the suspected killer was dramatically caught in the nearby mountains eight days later, his motive was murky.

Now, federal authorities say the man, identified as Air Force Staff Sgt. Steven Carrillo, 32, was an adherent of the “boogaloo boys,” a growing online extremist movement that has sought to use peaceful protests against police brutality to spread fringe views and ignite a race war. Federal investigators allege that’s exactly what Carrillo was trying to do last month.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/boogaloo-steven-carrillo/

[Captainant 27405]

23 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/boogaloo-steven-carrillo/

Linked inside that article was another pending trial involving members of right wing militias using the same tactic as in Kenosha - going out with rifles to "protect against widespread property destruction". It's a pleasant surprise that the prevailing opinion in that case is that "the heavily armed individuals who flaunted themselves at the protest, calling themselves a ‘civil guard,’ were there for one reason: To menace protesters, to present an unsanctioned show of unregulated force”. 

Maybe they should have brought a brillo pad for plausible deniability?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Captainant

[Captainant 27405]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

The Anti Defamation League doesn't even do that.

they actually do consider the boogaloo boys to be far-right, if you actually cared to read further down the ADL link that you've been incorrectly citing for the last few days

[wildcat09 29213]

4 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I just think a lot of people in CR with no real research just throw Boogaloo Boys in with other far right groups with little knowledge. I defintely put Proud Boys in far right group but as anyone can see they are really fucking out there. They even had members connected to Hamas and very anti-police views therefore aligning them with BLM protests. They're more like antifa than any other group tbh. One cannot just simply throw them into the far fight group bucket. The Anti Defamation League doesn't even do that.

Eat shit you fascist troll.

[wildcat09 29213]

"No we're not actually far right! We just talk all the time in private about how much we want to start a massive race war!" Get fucked, you worthless cumstain. 

[David Dennison 18646]

13 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I just think a lot of people in CR with no real research just throw Boogaloo Boys in with other far right groups with little knowledge. I defintely put Proud Boys in far right group but as anyone can see they are really fucking out there. They even had members connected to Hamas and very anti-police views therefore aligning them with BLM protests. They're more like antifa than any other group tbh. One cannot just simply throw them into the far fight group bucket. The Anti Defamation League doesn't even do that.

According to the ADL link you provided:

The boogaloo movement is a right-wing extremist movement, with most of its adherents coming from various fringe right-wing movements or philosophies. As a result, boogalooer attitudes towards the left range from moderately to extremely hostile. Many picture the boogaloo as being directed primarily or substantially against the left itself.

[David Dennison 18646]

The boogaloo movement and most of its adherents fit neatly into the right-wing extremist box even if some of its members don't. 

[wildcat09 29213]

Goddamnit Dennison, stop engaging the troll, he's just here to provide misinformation.

[Sawbonz 27392]

 

[52-80 19076]

4 hours ago, Fud said:

Have we talked about the most important part of the trial yet, the firearms and toolmark examiner?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

where's welcome to examine my tool all she wants

[B00M 6280]

boogaloser talk not going away

[David Dennison 18646]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Goddamnit Dennison, stop engaging the troll, he's just here to provide misinformation.

I have a problem.

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 hours ago, Bravo said:

Yet, they ran security for BLM protest. They don't fit neatly in your box. 

Benjamin Ryan Teeter, one of two boogalooers charged in September with attempting to provide material support to Hamas, identified himself on social media as a “left anarchist.”  There are also a few ties between boogalooers and left-leaning pro-gun groups. 

Do you do nothing but post on this trial? Between this thread and the DT circle jerk thread I’m really starting to believe this is actually I’m your job since you just show up out of nowhere and constantly spam this board with your oh so unbiased thoughts on this trial. All day every day. 

[RomaVicta 29769]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Stop engaging with the troll who promotes the boog for lulz.

It's pointless to engage other than for an initial refutation. 

I find it disturbing that amateur operatives who used to limit themselves to partisan lying to help their team have now leapt into subversion. Most disturbingly, it's common.

Is whatever pleasure one may find in trolling really enough to justify defending terrorists, racists, and subversives? I don't think so. 

The fuckwads "trolling" here and getting wildly applauded by the usual suspects are doing their part to destroy the republic. And it's all within the rules of the republic.

Bleak.

['stache 21744]

The only Boogaloos I like are electric.

[NWBuck 8547]

15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The only Boogaloos I like are electric.

They tend to break, though.

Repeatedly.

[wildcat09 29213]

It's the no boog allowed thread, fuckhead. 

If you guys get the war you so desperately want, it is going to go very badly for you. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

21 minutes ago, Bravo said:

why are you obsessed with me? is this not the rittenhouse thread during the active trial?

Um. Pretty sure you tagged me in the other thread, not the other way around.

Nice way to avoid the question though.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Trial has fascinated me because early on it was quite clear to me judging by the evidence it was self defense but the media made Rittenhouse out to be a serial killer. The start of the trial motivated me to start posting about it after reading the 2 threads on it for a year. Is that good enough for you? Hope it helps out with trying to understand me. Most takes in the CR have been so wrong it's quite amazing. It is all bearing out now. 

Well I hope the trial works out for you then and it’s as great as you hoped it would be.

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, Bravo said:

If you didn't get to watch today you missed some drama. Prosecution gets called out by a witness with autism who they apparently thought was stupid for witness tampering. All hell broke loose after this. Prosecution melted down on cross and spent 20 mins with questions trying to defend themselves only making it much much worse.

 

 

 

Dude you are an obviously dishonest hack. There was nothing about that testimony that showed the prosecution “melting down” or any sort of “witness tampering.” I was willing to give your crap one shot and just wasted 4 minutes of my life watching your disingenuous crap.

You are obviously either being paid to post pro defendant misinformation or related to doughboy Kyle somehow and I’m done listening to one word you say or answering your idiotic questions. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Bravo said:

I assume you have no issue with this either. It's for your team.

 

 

I’m done watching whatever bullshit you post. It’s all just lies anyway.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m done watching whatever bullshit you post. It’s all just lies anyway.

That’s right.  Because a wHiTe sUpReMaCiSt cRoSsEd A sTaTe LInE aNd sHoT pEaCeFuL pRoTeStErS

[Incredulity 11541]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m done watching whatever bullshit you post. It’s all just lies anyway.

 

What a complete surrender.

 

Jimmy, you really are an all time piece of crap.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Lol. The DT circle jerk has moved on over to the cloak room. Do you guys coordinate and wear the same color shirts when you all post at the same time? 

[immortal13 4059]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Dude you are an obviously dishonest hack. There was nothing about that testimony that showed the prosecution “melting down” or any sort of “witness tampering.” I was willing to give your crap one shot and just wasted 4 minutes of my life watching your disingenuous crap.

You are obviously either being paid to post pro defendant misinformation or related to doughboy Kyle somehow and I’m done listening to one word you say or answering your idiotic questions. 

Jimmy come on bro. Clearly if the testimony given is true, there was tampering. The AD asking the witness to add to his statement with information he had just provided is tampering, and a pathetic attempt to take advantage of an autistic person. 

[immortal13 4059]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m done watching whatever bullshit you post. It’s all just lies anyway.

You know you want to watch it, Jimmy

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

That’s right.  Because a wHiTe sUpReMaCiSt cRoSsEd A sTaTe LInE aNd sHoT pEaCeFuL pRoTeStErS

Where are you at sack?

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I was at the ranch hunting.  Missed out on that one. I don’t do protests.  Leave that to losers. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

You still have your pink pussy hat?

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I was at the ranch hunting.  Missed out on that one. I don’t do protests.  Leave that to losers. 

Well it’s good to know that even though you voted for trump you didn’t believe the big lie and didn’t attack the Capitol and instead went hunting.

As for doughboy. I don’t care whether he gets off or not. As I’ve said many times, it’s a close case. I just find it ridiculous how much you and your DT crew over there are so emotionally invested in his acquittal like your survival depends on it somehow. It’s bizarre. I think he gets off but I admit I am gonna find it kinda amusing watching the meltdown over there if he’s convicted of anything.

[tx 3 putt 76296]

34 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Where are you at sack?

 

 

1000000000% they should have went hot (full auto) and started dropping fools. same rules as your house, one step inside, pew pew. the crowd would have quickly dispersed. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

1000000000% they should have went hot (full auto) and started dropping fools. same rules as your house, one step inside, pew pew. the crowd would have quickly dispersed. 

Yep.Johnny sack and the pew pew crew never once post in the Capitol rioter thread. They’re ok with idiots attacking the Capitol but when you attack dumpsters at car dealerships then it’s just blast blast away. They’re such complete morons.