Kyle Rittenhouse

[Johnny Sack 8397]

20 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

He is underage, in a town he doesn't live in, walking around with a fucking gun.  You are a moron.

She was wearing a short skirt and was walking down a dark alley after midnight.

Would the case be different for you if he was four months older that night (age 18)?  Lots of people were in Kenosha that night.  None of the three attackers he shot were from there.  Plenty of people were walking around with guns, including one of his attackers.

 

[Fud 9543]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Lots of people were in Kenosha that night.  None of the three attackers he shot were from there.  Plenty of people were walking around with guns, including one of his attackers.

It's worth noting that while yes he crossed state lines, he lived only twenty miles away 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19074]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

She was wearing a short skirt and was walking down a dark alley after midnight.

Would the case be different for you if he was four months older that night (age 18)?  Lots of people were in Kenosha that night.  None of the three attackers he shot were from there.  Plenty of people were walking around with guns, including one of his attackers.

 

Not even the fucking same.  You aren't worth the effort. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, Fud said:

It's worth noting that while yes he crossed state lines, he lived only twenty miles away 

I am just glad to see liberals caring about a border for a change.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not even the fucking same.  You aren't worth the effort. 

You are so on tilt right now.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

You going to run out of negs, sweetie.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

32 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

He is underage, in a town he doesn't live in, walking around with a fucking gun.  You are a moron.

To be more precise, in illegal possession of a gun and not protecting a business which was his stated reason for travelling to Kenosha. Using Rittehouse's own logic- deadly force can be used to prevent lawbreaking- Rittenhouse could have justifiably been shot by someone trying to prevent Rittenhouse's lawbreaking.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

Oops, correction. White supremacists inherently don't believe in a single standard, so not by Rittenhouse's own logic. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

Sack - stop with posting in both threads about this case. You're only in this thread to troll and argue with people here just for your own entertainment.  you don't get pushback in the other thread so you pop in here just to create chaos.

[henrygandorf 29174]

37 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

None of the three attackers he shot were from there.  Plenty of people were walking around with guns, including one of his attackers.

and if they had murdered people, they should go down for it too. 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

 

If this turd walks on self defense, and I admit he just might, that clearly demonstrates our self defense laws, (and gun laws) are all kinds of fucked up.

 

This entire shit show exemplifies why you shouldn't be allowed to open carry guns in public.

 

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

43 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Would the case be different for you if he was four months older that night (age 18)?

your honor, she said she would be 18 in four months, so you know, cut me some slack.

[Captainant 27311]

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

If this turd walks on self defense, and I admit he just might, that clearly demonstrates our self defense laws, (and gun laws) are all kinds of fucked up.

zimmerman was a pretty strong indicator of that years ago...

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[mchookem 16095]

6 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

yep, that about does it 🙄

 

[tantric superman 4667]

59 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

She was wearing a short skirt and was walking down a dark alley after midnight.

 

She's got a Kimber in her panties and she's hunting Antifa?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19074]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

zimmerman was a pretty strong indicator of that years ago...

Different state, different laws around self defense.  I hold out hope that the jury here will do the right thing.  

[tantric superman 4667]

9 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

 

9 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Dismissed because the juror referred to him as a "man", rather that a "rioter"?  Can't have that.

[StruggleBus 3922]

19 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

If this turd walks on self defense, and I admit he just might, that clearly demonstrates our self defense laws, (and gun laws) are all kinds of fucked up.

 

This entire shit show exemplifies why you shouldn't be allowed to open carry guns in public.

 

 

Agreed on the gun/self defense laws. Something needs to change. 

That said, this kid is walking. No doubt about it. 

[Captainant 27311]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Different state, different laws around self defense.  I hold out hope that the jury here will do the right thing.  

the prosecution is spiking the case, the judge is lead blocker for the defense's "split second" warrior cop defense, and jurors are making jokes about cops shooting black people. 

You should know, there is no bottom. It'll always get worse.

[tantric superman 4667]

I would be absolutely stunned if he doesn't walk. 

When your laws are a problem, good people get screwed and bad people walk. 

He's a very bad, vile kid.  But I don't see how he gets convicted. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

23 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

and if they had murdered people, they should go down for it too. 

I'm with this idea as well. Just because you shoot and kill some bad actors, it doesn't mean that you're protected by the law. In my view, Rittenhouse went out of his way to put himself in a situation to hurt people.  Perhaps the dead guys had the same intention but that doesn't excuse Rittenhouse since that was his intent.  This isn't offsetting penalties in the NFL. No do-overs.

[DigglerontheHoof 21022]

15 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

I'd be willing to bet that most on that jury are pieces of shit; the rest just aren't dumb enough to remove all doubt.  Little fuck bitch will walk. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

16 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

I don't even understand an adult that makes jokes like this. Especially when you're on the jury of a related case. WTF?

This is a reminder of the type of citizens that we have out there. It's also why the jury system doesn't work on cases that are directly or indirectly impacted by cultural issues. And this goes both directions. We have trials where evidence doesn't matter. You might as well swear-in the jury and have them decide based on what info they had coming into the case. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

oh. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

4 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

He provoked the attack by (a) being there and (b) having a fucking gun.  Fuck this kid. He killed MULTIPLE people that night.

I tend to agree with that general premise, but I don't think that's going to be legally sufficient to show provocation.

Which is what I meant when I said self-defense statutes don't seem to really contemplate the open carry scenario very well.

[tx 3 putt 76159]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

She was wearing a short skirt and was walking down a dark alley after midnight.

Would the case be different for you if he was four months older that night (age 18)?  Lots of people were in Kenosha that night.  None of the three attackers he shot were from there.  Plenty of people were walking around with guns, including one of his attackers.

 

was the first person an attacker or accidentally shot ?

whyd two people single him out in a crowd with many armed vigilantes ? 

[henrygandorf 29174]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tend to agree with that general premise, but I don't think that's going to be legally sufficient to show provocation.

Which is what I meant when I said self-defense statutes don't seem to really contemplate the open carry scenario very well.

so if there's a state with similar self-defense laws, and i jump into a ufc ring holding a knife, and one of the fighters tries to hit me and i stab him, then i'm in the clear?

[tx 3 putt 76159]

2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I'd be willing to bet that most on that jury are pieces of shit; the rest just aren't dumb enough to remove all doubt.  Little fuck bitch will walk. 

Wisconsin has huge racial issues, very black and white state 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

oh. 

 

That is a really weird attempted point.  Counsel was quoting what Rosenbaum was on camera screaming minutes before the shooting.  When he was acting mentally ill and crazy.

[Nivek 16808]

50 minutes ago, Bravo said:

This morning was worse than yesterday for the prosecution. Star witness for the state said on the stand Rosenbaum lunged at his gun. DA then argues with his own witness as judge then has to reprimand him. Judge should just throw it out now and end this shit show the prosecutor is putting on. Is this his 1st case? 

They are trying to get re-elected and sabotaging the case.  They picked a jury member who made a joke about a man being shot and this prosecutor accepted this individual.  The judge biased the case.   This case seems to be less legitimate than the People's Court.  

[wildcat09 29187]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tend to agree with that general premise, but I don't think that's going to be legally sufficient to show provocation.

Which is what I meant when I said self-defense statutes don't seem to really contemplate the open carry scenario very well.

They certainly don't.

It can't be the case that it's never reasonable to fear for your life until someone carrying a rifle is already pointing it at you. Many people openly carrying means that at all times many people can plausibly claim self defense for shooting someone else who is openly carrying.

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They certainly don't.

It can't be the case that it's never reasonable to fear for your life until someone carrying a rifle is already pointing it at you. Many people openly carrying means that at all times many people can plausibly claim self defense for shooting someone else who is openly carrying.

not to turn this into the active shooter/gun thread, but every time "i need a gun to protect my family" is mentioned, nobody seems to agree that "it should just be kept in your house" because "what about car-jacking?!?"  i still don't understand why anybody who's claiming self/family protection needs to carry a gun on their person.  their car is a stretch, but if i squint i can see it.

[hookemATL 11596]

Retry this thing in Night Court!

[Nivek 16808]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

That is a really weird attempted point.  Counsel was quoting what Rosenbaum was on camera screaming minutes before the shooting.  When he was acting mentally ill and crazy.

He is arguing that Rittenhouse, not a medic, not a nurse, not a doctor, was out there, illegally with a semi-automatic rifle but since he had some band-aids he was really there to help people.   Bull fucking shit.   But this is a hell of a defense.  I guess I need to carry a floss stick around more.  

[Nivek 16808]

10 minutes ago, Bravo said:

he's a dem DA. that's a bad way to pander to your base.

Like a Manchin or Krystan Democrat? 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Nivek

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

I still don't understand why evidence of the victim's character is admissable but the defendant's isn't, but making the public understand is the reasoning the judge gave for railing on the media in court, though that appears to be a separate issue.

I was admittedly multi-tasking when I read it but if any legal eagles wanna chime in...

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/kyle-rittenhouses-judge-scolds-jeffrey-toobin-and-other-cnn-analysts-for-being-obviously-unfamiliar-with-an-ancient-rule-of-our-law/

[Johnny Sack 8397]

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I still don't understand why evidence of the victim's character is admissable but the defendant's isn't, but making the public understand is the reasoning the judge gave for railing on the media in court, though that appears to be a separate issue.

I was admittedly multi-tasking when I read it but if any legal eagles wanna chime in...

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/kyle-rittenhouses-judge-scolds-jeffrey-toobin-and-other-cnn-analysts-for-being-obviously-unfamiliar-with-an-ancient-rule-of-our-law/

I don't believe the judge allowed the jury to know that attacker one was a felon kiddie diddler.

As to railing on the media and , it doesn't matter.  It was done on break when the jury was excused.

[elfenix 34168]

11 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I still don't understand why evidence of the victim's character is admissable but the defendant's isn't, but making the public understand is the reasoning the judge gave for railing on the media in court, though that appears to be a separate issue.

I was admittedly multi-tasking when I read it but if any legal eagles wanna chime in...

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/kyle-rittenhouses-judge-scolds-jeffrey-toobin-and-other-cnn-analysts-for-being-obviously-unfamiliar-with-an-ancient-rule-of-our-law/

i recall character evidence being a pretty problematic issue during evidence class or criminal procedure (probably both).  for the vast majority of homicides where the people know each other then i would think it's a bit more applicable but here where these two guys had all of 10 seconds of interaction none of that could have entered kyle's mind. 

 

the narration in the video discussed in the article was made by a guy literally sitting in the courtroom.  might have been interesting had he stood up and said, "here i am." 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

22 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

 

 

Scenario 1-

Person 1 sees Person 2 holding up a convenience store and tries to disarm Person 2. Person 2 shoots Person 1. 

Scenario 2-

Person 1 sees Person 2 illegally carrying firearm into a volatile situation and tries to disarm Person 2. Person 2 shoots Person 1.

Both shooters are apprehended. What happens to the 2 shooters? Do they have different fates? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Scenario 1-

Person 1 sees Person 2 holding up a convenience store and tries to disarm Person 2. Person 2 shoots Person 1. 

Scenario 2-

Person 1 sees Person 2 illegally carrying firearm into a volatile situation and tries to disarm Person 2. Person 2 shoots Person 1.

Both shooters are apprehended. What happens to the 2 shooters? Do they have different fates? 

Yes. Person 1 in scenario one is attempting to stop an aggravated robbery.  That is legal,  Person 2 shooting him just committed a murder under felony murder.

Scenario 2 -- Person 2 is not committing the type of felony that permits you to use force against them.  He is not pointing his gun at anyone.  He is illegally carrying technically because he is not yet 18.  That is a misdemeanor.  You don't have authority to try to disarm someone from carrying so long as they are not pointing the gun at someone.  Any more than you have authority to pull them over for speeding.  It is legal to open carry rifles.  People do it all the time.  It being a riot and a dangerous situation does not change anything. Him being 4 months younger than 18 does not change a damn thing with anyone's right to disarm him.  Sure, if he points it at someone, go for it.  Otherwise, either call the cops and let them know you think a minor is illegally carrying or mind your own fucking business.

[henrygandorf 29174]

“i never pointed my gun at anyone” says the guy who murdered 2 and injured a 3rd. 

[Captainant 27311]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Sure, if he points it at someone, go for it. 

There's multiple witnesses who have publicly claimed that he was pointing it at people. You've continually ignored this inconvenient allegation.

[elfenix 34168]

18 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Scenario 1-

Person 1 sees Person 2 holding up a convenience store and tries to disarm Person 2. Person 2 shoots Person 1. 

Scenario 2-

Person 1 sees Person 2 illegally carrying firearm into a volatile situation and tries to disarm Person 2. Person 2 shoots Person 1.

Both shooters are apprehended. What happens to the 2 shooters? Do they have different fates? 

Good Guy with Gun 1 sees Good Guy with Gun 2 leaving with a gun from an area where a shooting has just happened and tries to disarm Good Guy with Gun 2.  Good Guy with Gun 2 shoots Good Guy with Gun 1.  

Edited November 4, 2021 by elfenix

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

That is a really weird attempted point.  Counsel was quoting what Rosenbaum was on camera screaming minutes before the shooting.  When he was acting mentally ill and crazy.

He was acting all mentally ill and crazy? And yelling the n word (completely irrelevant but yeah judge just go ahead and let that in).

Shoot him like a dog!

Judge seems incredibly defense biased on this one. Keeps out video of Kyle saying he wants to shoot people, allows in the n word by the victim, err I mean, looter.

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

You are so on tilt right now.

Just don’t call her a victim.

[JimmyJames 12271]

The proud boys are proud of Kyle and the judge. 
 

Just like the sack is proud of Kyle and thinks the judge has done everything right so far. Good all American kid who goes out hunting people. Hopefully attacks the Capitol in a few years.

Edited November 4, 2021 by JimmyJames

[Johnny Sack 8397]

26 minutes ago, Captainant said:

There's multiple witnesses who have publicly claimed that he was pointing it at people. You've continually ignored this inconvenient allegation.

The prosecutor should put them on the stand quick.  Because the jury only hears evidence offered in court.  Not sure what he's waiting on.

[Underdog 28437]

18 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Judge seems incredibly defense biased on this one. Keeps out video of Kyle saying he wants to shoot people, allows in the n word by the victim, err I mean, looter.

This guy on the bench?