Kyle Rittenhouse

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

Guys, Johnny Sack of Shit, Bravo, and Workswithseed are not arguing in good faith.  The fact that they call us all Lefties, the media corrupt and deplorable, tells you everything you need to know about their stance and their arguments.  It is no longer worth engaging them at all anymore.  Neg them with impunity, but we would all be better off if we just stop responding.  These are people that believe that if you are on the wrong team, you should be shot.  

Edited November 12, 2021 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Nice Guy Eddie 13511]

9 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Open carrying a long rifle is legal.  Lots of people were open carrying.  Is it your position it should be legal to assault people who are open carrying a rifle?

Perception is critical in these situations. Guy walks into a store carrying a rifle. There is no legal definition of when someone should fear for their life and need to take action. Or do you think the line is only when someone points and pulls the trigger a half-second later?

Personally I think the open carry folks take their lives into their own hands when they decide to take a stand in public regarding their rights. If a bystander feels their life is in danger for the gun-carrying guy, there is a valid argument they're in the right to take the potential active shooter out.

Who wouldn't be alarmed when these 2 guys walk into a restaurant? If someone shot these 2 guys, I would hope that the police would arrest that person and there is an investigation on whether that was a valid self-defense concern or not. 

 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

Not a chance in hell I'm reading every post in this thread but a few thoughts:

1) Kyle Rittenhouse is a bad human being.  The world would be better without him in it.

2) Legally, he's gonna walk.  

3) If I go to a MAGA rally with an AR-15 style rifle, start yelling anti-Trump shit, and then start shooting once I feel threatened, I'm sure many defending Kyle right now would have different feelings towards me.

4) The glorification of Kyle is the most troubling part, and a shocking view as to how our society has crumbled in the Trump era.  George Zimmerman's innocence was defended, but he was never lauded as some kind of hero.  He absolutely would be in 2021.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Chuckie Finster

[Johnny Sack 8397]

6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not if you are a 17 year old kid.  That is not legal.

He can be charged under the statute for that.  It in no way impacts his right to self defense and the judge will instruct the jury on it.

Again, a Wisconsin woman carrying an illegal concealed pistol who shoots and kills her attempted rapist can be charged for illegally carrying.  But her illegal carrying would have zero to do with whether she acted in self defense.  This situation is identical.

His self defense does not rest on whether he was 17 or 18 that night.

Also, and again it does not matter to self defense, but the statute he is charged under is very poorly written and ambiguous.  It can be easily interpreted to not prohibit 16 or 17 year olds for open carrying long rifles like an AR15 and instead only prohibiting sawed off shotguns and short barrel rifles.  Any way, it is just a misdemeanor and here is an article discussing the issue on the statute's wording

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-column-rittenhouse-gun-laws-wisconsin-zorn-20200908-tfhn5g2davdgdemtugaf5t6mce-story.html

[Captainant 27655]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Any way, it is just a misdemeanor and here is an article discussing the issue on the statute's wording

conspiring to acquire the rifle through a straw man purchase is a felony.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Not a chance in hell I'm reading every post in this thread but a few thoughts:

1) Kyle Rittenhouse is a bad human being.  The world would be better without him in it.

2) Legally, he's gonna walk.  

3) If I go to a MAGA rally with an AR-15 style rifle, start yelling anti-Trump shit, and then start shooting once I feel threatened, I'm sure many defending Kyle right now would have different feelings towards me.

4) The glorification of Kyle is the most troubling part, and a shocking view as to how our society has crumbled in the Trump era.  George Zimmerman's innocence was defended, but he was never lauded as some kind of hero.  He absolutely would be in 2021.

I would feel different because that's not what happened here.  KR wasn't yelling anything at anyone.  And feeling threatened is not enough.  Someone would need to attack you unprovoked and you have a reasonable belief you needed to shoot that person to prevent your death or serious bodily injury.

[Underdog 28613]

23 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Yep.  Take two ends of the spectrum.

Guy goes into a Whataburger with a permitted concealed handgun.  Gets into a confrontation with another patron over who was in line first, the other patron escalates the situation into an all-out rage attack and pulls a knife, guy takes out his gun and shoots the other patron dead.  Pretty sure most of us would agree that's justifiable self-defense that should not result in a criminal prosecution.

On the other end, a guy openly carries a rifle into the middle of a riot without any necessity of being there to protect his person or property, and starts indiscriminately firing shots in the air (I'm not saying that KR did anything like this, I'm just pushing the scenario to the extreme).  The angry mob descends upon him and he shoots several dead.  That's going to cause a lot more debate over whether a theory of self-defense should acquit any criminal prosecution.  Depending on the jurisdiction, a strict application of a self-defense statute might require an acquittal.   

What were they planning on ordering at Whataburger?  May sway my vote. 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I would feel different because that's not what happened here.  KR wasn't yelling anything at anyone.  And feeling threatened is not enough.  Someone would need to attack you unprovoked and you have a reasonable belief you needed to shoot that person to prevent your death or serious bodily injury.

LMAO I'm sure Kyle was a little silent choir boy until the point of attack.  GTFO.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/video-shows-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse-punching-a-girl-report/

[David Dennison 18854]

nm

Edited November 12, 2021 by David Dennison

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That doesn't matter for the purposes of this trial.

No shit.  See my point #2.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

conspiring to acquire the rifle through a straw man purchase is a felony.

The DOJ can charge him with it.  But they for some reason rarely bring that charge. They have hundreds and hundreds of straw purchases and form 4473 violations stone cold locks a year and they rarely bring charges.  That has been consistent for decades.  They pretty much ignore 4473 violations all the time.  Ask Hunter Biden.

KR has a defense on it too.  If he and the buyer keep their story the same he could easily walk on that. From my understanding their story is this: Rittenhouse asked a WI friend of his to purchase a rifle for his use but not his possession. It is perfectly legal in the state of Wisconsin for a legal adult to buy a firearm for a minor to use (think a father buying a hunting rifle for his young son). The weapon remained legally in the possession of Rittenhouse's adult friend who held it in trust for Rittenhouse to use when he came up to WI for hunting trips. And their plan was to legally transfer ownership of the rifle when Rittenhouse came of age.

Yeah it's probably bullshit made up after they lawyered up.  But KR and his buddy have not been charged by Merrick Garland's DOJ -- probably because they cannot disprove the likely concocted story beyond a reasonable doubt so long as they stick to the story.

The purchaser is charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 causing death. No idea how an acquittal of KR would impact that charge.  The state did move to adjourn that case until KR's case is resolved.

[South Austin 52463]

10 minutes ago, Underdog said:

What were they planning on ordering at Whataburger?  May sway my vote. 

Let's say guy with the concealed handgun was going to order a hamburger with nothing on it except mayo and an orange soda.

[DigglerontheHoof 21186]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Let's say guy with the concealed handgun was going to order a hamburger with nothing on it except mayo and an orange soda.

he should be charged w/ assault and battery on his taste buds.

[Incredulity 11665]

28 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

start shooting once I feel threatened,

Depends on what is actually occurring when you "feel threatened".  You know the rule of law.

[Captainant 27655]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The weapon remained legally in the possession of Rittenhouse's adult friend who held it in trust for Rittenhouse to use when he came up to WI for hunting trips.

You'd think going hunting for people would severely tarnish a self defense claim, but here we are.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

34 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Perception is critical in these situations. Guy walks into a store carrying a rifle. There is no legal definition of when someone should fear for their life and need to take action. Or do you think the line is only when someone points and pulls the trigger a half-second later?

Personally I think the open carry folks take their lives into their own hands when they decide to take a stand in public regarding their rights. If a bystander feels their life is in danger for the gun-carrying guy, there is a valid argument they're in the right to take the potential active shooter out.

Who wouldn't be alarmed when these 2 guys walk into a restaurant? If someone shot these 2 guys, I would hope that the police would arrest that person and there is an investigation on whether that was a valid self-defense concern or not. 

 

Master race alpha males here

[Johnny Sack 8397]

34 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Not a chance in hell I'm reading every post in this thread but a few thoughts:

1) Kyle Rittenhouse is a bad human being.  The world would be better without him in it.

2) Legally, he's gonna walk.  

3) If I go to a MAGA rally with an AR-15 style rifle, start yelling anti-Trump shit, and then start shooting once I feel threatened, I'm sure many defending Kyle right now would have different feelings towards me.

4) The glorification of Kyle is the most troubling part, and a shocking view as to how our society has crumbled in the Trump era.  George Zimmerman's innocence was defended, but he was never lauded as some kind of hero.  He absolutely would be in 2021.

If someone at the MAGA really threatened to kill you if he caught you alone, you are later alone and this same person chases you down for 150 feet while screaming at you, and lunged at you while grabbing your rifle, fire away.

If after you shot in defense above, a second person who did not even see you shoot above, hits you in the head or neck with a skateboard and then reaches down to try and take your gun, fire away.

If after you shoot Mr. Skater, a third guy walks up to you and points a Glock at your head, fire away.

[David Dennison 18854]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Asking your honest opinion given the media coverage and some of the things certain politicians have said about him: what do you think about the merits of his defamation claim?

Stuff like this:

As to the white supremacist stuff, maybe don't flash the white power symbol when you pose for post-riot pics.

[wildcat09 29349]

43 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Not a chance in hell I'm reading every post in this thread but a few thoughts:

1) Kyle Rittenhouse is a bad human being.  The world would be better without him in it.

2) Legally, he's gonna walk.  

3) If I go to a MAGA rally with an AR-15 style rifle, start yelling anti-Trump shit, and then start shooting once I feel threatened, I'm sure many defending Kyle right now would have different feelings towards me.

4) The glorification of Kyle is the most troubling part, and a shocking view as to how our society has crumbled in the Trump era.  George Zimmerman's innocence was defended, but he was never lauded as some kind of hero.  He absolutely would be in 2021.

I agree with all of this except there were definitely people lauding Zimmerman as a hero. I'm pretty sure Sack was one of them. 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If someone at the MAGA really threatened to kill you if he caught you alone, you are later alone and this same person chases you down for 150 feet while screaming at you, and lunged at you while grabbing your rifle, fire away.

If after you shot in defense above, a second person who did not even see you shoot above, hits you in the head or neck with a skateboard and then reaches down to try and take your gun, fire away.

If after you shoot Mr. Skater, a third guy walks up to you and points a Glock at your head, fire away.

Thank you for your permission.

I have absolutely zero doubt that I could put myself in this scenario, should I choose.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=violent+maga+rally

[Dutchrudder 11137]

50 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Discovery goes both way.  KR's team gets all the internal communications, emails and texts from all the media personnel and depos of the media personnel and their corporate reps.  That would be pretty fun -- Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, Van Jones, Jamele Hill, Joe Scarborough, Joy Behar, etc.  And there really would be no basis for a protective order (especially if in federal court), so the public gets a nice little look behind the curtain.  He can also sue a few of the squad for their tweets on the subject.  And the Big Guy once he's out of office.

I think he has a better case than Nick Sandman.  And I suspect he got paid bigly because CNN really did not want to have to produce their people's emails and texts or sit under oath.

Yeah they can drag him around a little bit.  But the public already knows about the looter video, him posing with proud boys, etc.  His reputation has already been trashed and he has nothing to lose.  He can get a pound of flesh from the asshats above

That case would be over before it starts. Here's how it would go:

Defendant, do you have good reason to believe KR is a white supremacist?

Exhibit 1a:

 

Case dismissed. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I agree with all of this except there were definitely people lauding Zimmerman as a hero. I'm pretty sure Sack was one of them. 

I thought the state lacked proof to convict him.  I in no way could tell you whether he was innocent.  There is somewhat reasonable chance he got away with murder.  There is also a reasonable chance he used justifiable force in self defense.  There was not sufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

This kid there is plenty of proof.  And he is innocent.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

That case would be over before it starts. Here's how it would go:

Defendant, do you have good reason to believe KR is a white supremacist?

Exhibit 1a:

 

Case dismissed. 

Then you show the other 10 million people making that sign.

Or you just focus on the 10 million defamatory statements made prior to that picture being released.

[wildcat09 29349]

Would this girl have had the right to shoot Rittenhouse in self defense?

 

 

[brakeman 28359]

wow.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Then you show the other 10 million people making that sign.

Or you just focus on the 10 million defamatory statements made prior to that picture being released.

You're such a pussy. Honestly, the biggest fucking pussy. I'm so glad I don't have to go through life being such a fucking coward.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

You're such a pussy. Honestly, the biggest fucking pussy. I'm so glad I don't have to go through life being such a fucking coward.

You seem upset.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You seem upset.

You seem like a pussy.

[Dutchrudder 11137]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Then you show the other 10 million people making that sign.

Or you just focus on the 10 million defamatory statements made prior to that picture being released.

It's not just the sign, context matters. It was at a bar where a group of Proud Boys were throwing him a party. 

He took pictures with them.

He flashed that sign while taking pictures with them.

The judge told him to stop doing that afterwards... (probably for his own good)

 

I dunno about you, but I would be pretty angry and disappointed in my kid if I saw him doing that. That's not an accident. Trying to sue someone for defamation for saying you are a white supremacist, while openly associating with a white supremacist organization is going to be a tough sell. 

[Mdhorn 5948]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not if you are a 17 year old kid.  That is not legal.

And it should be treated like a crime--kid loads up illegally and goes to a march after stating he wanted to shoot some people.  If there are no repercussions, do all 17 year olds get to carry and shoot others when they feel compelled?  He's not police or serves in any official capacity, and this is going to be a problem when these douchebags decide they will patrol voting booths and other public displays.  This is an armed insurgent looking to do exactly what he said he wanted to do prior.  He then makes bank while dropping white supremacy symbols.  Kyle committed a crime by being armed and then went hunting without a license or authority. He broke laws, he's guilty.  Then he shot some people in defense after already breaking laws.  He's a criminal and should be treated like one.  He should get to experience our fine rehabilitation facilities first hand.    

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

You seem like a pussy.

I have said something that really bothers you.  Please have a nice day.

[South Austin 52463]

6 minutes ago, Bravo said:

True but Nick Sandmann did the same a few yrs back and got some $ out of CNN and an apology. Regardless, can even the most left leaning person not see the bias here? These is CBS not MSNBC, CNN or Fox. The media is completely slanted.

1. Nick Sandman didn’t carry a rifle into a riot and post videos spewing right-wing garbage.

2. Sure there’s bias. But bias doesn’t equal defamation.

Edited November 12, 2021 by South Austin

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

It's not just the sign, context matters. It was at a bar where a group of Proud Boys were throwing him a party. 

He took pictures with them.

He flashed that sign while taking pictures with them.

The judge told him to stop doing that afterwards... (probably for his own good)

 

I dunno about you, but I would be pretty angry and disappointed in my kid if I saw him doing that. That's not an accident. Trying to sue someone for defamation for saying you are a white supremacist, while openly associating with a white supremacist organization is going to be a tough sell. 

It really won't be relevant to all the people who called him a white supremacist before that pic was released.

It is not relevant to those who labeled him a domestic terrorist.

It is not relevant to those who labeled him a murderer.

He is going to sue the shit out of the media when this is over.  And very likely some politicians.  He will get them to produce all their emails and texts about him.  Unless they want to settle quick.  I do not think most of these people or entities want the public getting a peek behind the curtains at their internal communications about this incident.  I hope he refuses an early settlement and exposes these bastards for the vile creatures they are.  And sue them in a friendly forum.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I have said something that really bothers you.  Please have a nice day.

Not really. You're just a sniveling coward and it's really sad.

[High Plains Drifter 11035]

 

23 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Then you show the other 10 million people making that sign.

Or you just focus on the 10 million defamatory statements made prior to that picture being released.

 

10 million huh?

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Not really. You're just a sniveling coward and it's really sad.

Have a nice day.  I don't really have any opinions about you.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

It really won't be relevant to all the people who called him a white supremacist before that pic was released.

It is not relevant to those who labeled him a domestic terrorist.

It is not relevant to those who labeled him a murderer.

He is going to sue the shit out of the media when this is over.  And very likely some politicians.  He will get them to produce all their emails and texts about him.  Unless they want to settle quick.  I do not think most of these people or entities want the public getting a peek behind the curtains at their internal communications about this incident.  I hope he refuses an early settlement and exposes these bastards for the vile creatures they are.  And sue them in a friendly forum.

You're a fucking idiot if you think he has a case. Not only that, it's EXTREMELY likely he will be dragged endlessly in civil court, where he's going to see a level of discovery he really doesn't want. And he won't have a baby brained dipshit boomer judge to protect him, either.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Brian Fantana

[David Dennison 18854]

21 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Then you show the other 10 million people making that sign.

Or you just focus on the 10 million defamatory statements made prior to that picture being released.

How many of those statements are supported with evidence of actual malice?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

How many of those statements are supported with evidence of actual malice?

Too early to say.  That's what discovery is for.  Will be a lot of internal emails and texts to sort through.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

4 minutes ago, Bravo said:

saying you murdered 2 people if found not guilty could definitely equal defamation, no?

Ask OJ Simpson

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

I would feel different because that's not what happened here.  KR wasn't yelling anything at anyone.  And feeling threatened is not enough.  Someone would need to attack you unprovoked and you have a reasonable belief you needed to shoot that person to prevent your death or serious bodily injury.

Were you there with him that night Johnny? Seems like a pretty bold statment. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

You're a fucking idiot if you think he has a case. Not only that, it's EXTREMELY likely he will be dragged endlessly in civil court, where he's going to see a level of discovery he really doesn't want. And he won't have a baby brained dipshit boomer judge to protect him, either.

We will see, because those lawsuits are coming.  He has nothing to lose in discovery as the media's slander has already ruined his reputation.  The media networks have a lot more to lose as do their reporters who made or published the defamatory statements.

I am quite certain he can find plenty of favorable forums to bring his lawsuit.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Were you there with him that night Johnny? Seems like a pretty bold statment. 

Well, there is no evidence of him yelling at anyone that night.  None of the state's witnesses claim he was, including lefty.  None of the hundreds of hours of videos that the state has show he was.

[South Austin 52463]

3 minutes ago, Bravo said:

saying you murdered 2 people if found not guilty could definitely equal defamation, no?

Eh, still think that's a tough one.  But it's why the media always tags on the word "alleged," so they can plausibly say they're just reporting allegations and not stating facts.

I won't fault Rittenhouse for suing big media.  It's the American Way.  But I also won't fault the media for lawyering up and saying, "Bring it."

[David Dennison 18854]

5 minutes ago, Bravo said:

saying you murdered 2 people if found not guilty could definitely equal defamation, no?

Not until he's actually found not guilty, and even then the plaintiff would have to prove actual malice.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

We will see, because those lawsuits are coming.  He has nothing to lose in discovery as the media's slander has already ruined his reputation.  The media networks have a lot more to lose as do their reporters who made or published the defamatory statements.

I am quite certain he can find plenty of favorable forums to bring his lawsuit.

Someone will hear his lawsuit, he just has no shot of winning. The civil suits that follow this trial will not be good for him. It just sucks all around.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

Let us just hope when this is all over and KR walks free. That all the open carry gun nuts on the left will have simulataneous protests with all the open carry gun nuts on the right. They all feel threatened at the same time and they all kill each other. The world will be a better place once all these whackos are dead and buried. 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

11 minutes ago, Bravo said:

The OK sign is now for white supremacist? I guess I am naïve or this is so fringe I have never heard of this. Seems like a reach. I guess Joe needs to watch out. 

 

 

"These are all the same to me because I pretend to not understand context."

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Eh, still think that's a tough one.  But it's why the media always tags on the word "alleged," so they can plausibly say they're just reporting allegations and not stating facts.

I won't fault Rittenhouse for suing big media.  It's the American Way.  But I also won't fault the media for lawyering up and saying, "Bring it."

I hope they do say bring it.  Because discovery will be some must see shit.  Would love to see the internal emails and texts about KR and this incident from Joy Behar, Whoopi, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, Van Jones, Jamele Hill, Joy Reid, Tariq Nasheed, and many more. Plus the corporate reps of all their employers. 

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

I hope they do say bring it.  Because discovery will be some must see shit.  Would love to see the internal emails and texts about KR and this incident from Joy Behar, Whoopi, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, Van Jones, Jamele Hill, Joy Reid, Tariq Nasheed, and many more. Plus the corporate reps of all their employers. 

How many of those emails and texts do you think would show that any of them knew that what they were saying wasn't true?