Now that it’s with the jury, where do you stand.

[Gidnik 3251]

10 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Justice will not be served

What does justice mean for you?  Not trolling genuinely curious 

[StruggleBus 3922]

If you’ve watched this trial and answered anything other than not guilty you lack a functioning brain. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

yeah, he's not going down for murder one. however, the jury asking for multiple copies of instructions makes me think they are considering some of the lesser included charges.

/notalawyerthoughwonmocktrialandwascomplimentedbythejudgeinhighschool

[South Austin 52144]

3 hours ago, Gidnik said:

What does justice mean for you?  Not trolling genuinely curious 

Justice is waiting for him.

 

[Sawbonz 27436]

4 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

They probably don’t own the buildings themselves, if they do they should be insured. Along with contents. 
look, I’m not arguing in favor of riots, looting, lawlessness or days of rage. I’m just saying that if it happens I’m not saddling up and bringing my gun bc that’s gonna start problems and probably lead to me ending up dead or killing somebody, and both those options seem way to extreme when compared with rioters burning down property. 
It’s just stuff. It doesn’t need to be protected at the cost of human life and intentionally asserting yourself into a situation like that is a bad bad bad idea, imo. 

This may be an argument for another thread but as we found out with the Minneapolis riots many small business owners are under insured or even uninsured. They struggle to pay the rent, keep the lights on, and make payroll and live on whatever is left. Even if they are well insured the deductible plus loss of revenue during repairs may sink them. If they own the land and building they could be looking at their income, college plan for their kids, and retirement all going up in flames

 

 

[elfenix 34171]

4 hours ago, Gidnik said:

What does justice mean for you?  Not trolling genuinely curious 

who had that avatar?  your posts are weirding me out because i associate it with someone else.  @Beau Vine maybe?

[Dahobbs 17447]

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I feel like we are simply glossing over the fact that there was testimonial evidence of witness tampering?  Is that a thing that is relevant here? I admit ignorance of the dark arts. 

To what are you referring? I haven't been following very intently, but a quick google search didn't reveal any information, just speculation from various right wing sites that I don't think that is what you're talking about.  

[Anastasis 23394]

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

To what are you referring? I haven't been following very intently, but a quick google search didn't reveal any information, just speculation from various right wing sites that I don't think that is what you're talking about.  

I too only catching bits of pieces of the streams, but it was discussed here as the testimony was being given. 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

This may be an argument for another thread but as we found out with the Minneapolis riots many small business owners are under insured or even uninsured. They struggle to pay the rent, keep the lights on, and make payroll and live on whatever is left. Even if they are well insured the deductible plus loss of revenue during repairs may sink them. If they own the land and building they could be looking at their income, college plan for their kids, and retirement all going up in flames

 

 

So, write a bigger insurance check then... It's not worth grabbing a gun and standing your post.  

[Dahobbs 17447]

35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I too only catching bits of pieces of the streams, but it was discussed here as the testimony was being given. 

Anything more specific on what the tampering might have been? 

[Anastasis 23394]

 

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Anything more specific on what the tampering might have been? 

 

The kid (he appeared to have some spectrumy characteristics) was convinced that the DA was trying to get him to change his sworn statement.  The whole thing was a pretty clown showish exchange IIRC.   

[Beau Vine 54003]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

who had that avatar?  your posts are weirding me out because i associate it with someone else.  @Beau Vine maybe?

Yeah, that was mine up until about 2 years ago.  It weirds me out too, because at first I think it's a post I made that I didn't remember.  

[TXSG8R 3360]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

The kid (he appeared to have some spectrumy characteristics) was convinced that the DA was trying to get him to change his sworn statement.  The whole thing was a pretty clown showish exchange IIRC.   

From what I saw from the judge and defense counsel I dont think this is something that would have been glossed over if it happened.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

So this kid went to a BLM protest, with an AR-15, shot three people, killed two, and is claiming self defense?

And there are folks on here thinking this kid should walk?  Do I have this right? 

[Brothahorn 10085]

So this kid went to a BLM protest, with an AR-15, shot three people, killed two, and is claiming self defense?
And there are folks on here thinking this kid should walk?  Do I have this right? 

I see you're back to collect more blood money.

[fattyflattie 4636]

21 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

He’ll walk but if he gets murdered on the way out of the courthouse, he had it coming.

 

20 hours ago, Superhero said:

Doesn't need to be coming out of the courthouse. Any time in the next 3 months is good enough.

Wow.  

[closetohumping 17401]

On 11/16/2021 at 1:30 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

Not guilty, the kid is still a piece of shit. MAGA will make him a hero. Society continues to crumble. 

 

+1

[closetohumping 17401]

10 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Definitely not wrong, but people are willing to do so. There's a reason we have roof Koreans as nomenclature. Kinda reminds me of this as well. 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Out-of-control-Organized-crime-drives-S-F-16175755.php

That hurts everyone, and that's just theft. I don't mean to make it as you condone it, I just understand why when no one else is protecting your town, you would feel like you have to. 

 

You know how to avoid being shot?  Don't loot or steal. If I'm in the looting mood and I come up to 10 Koreans with AKs, I'm moving on to the next liquor store and honestly I'm not mad at the Koreans for defending their shit.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

the jury is gonna hang…

[Anastasis 23394]

37 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

You know how to avoid being shot?  Don't loot or steal. If I'm in the looting mood and I come up to 10 Koreans with AKs, I'm moving on to the next liquor store and honestly I'm not mad at the Koreans for defending their shit.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

16 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

the jury is gonna hang…

If no verdict tomorrow then that’s what I think also. I still think a verdict is possible tomorrow, and even into Friday. If no verdict by the end of the day on Friday, though, then they’re hung.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

Based on the way the trial went, I am surprised the jury has been deliberating for as long as it has. That leads me to believe likely there will be a hung jury, or it might settle on a lesser charge to try and split the baby in a politicized trial.

Having watched some of the trial and listened to commentary, I do not think the prosecution proved its case. However, it would naive to believe the jury may be haunted by externalities.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

Why did there need to be an additional thread on this?

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Based on the way the trial went, I am surprised the jury has been deliberating for as long as it has. That leads me to believe likely there will be a hung jury, or it might settle on a lesser charge to try and split the baby in a politicized trial.

Having watched some of the trial and listened to commentary, I do not think the prosecution proved its case. However, it would naive to believe the jury may be haunted by externalities.

What’s naive is thinking the entire jury thinks the same as you do and would automatically acquit.

If it makes you feel better it’s not over. They still could acquit. Nobody really knows why they’re taking their time. It’s just tea leave reading to speculate why that is. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

One thing that jury consultants have noticed is that since Covid, the election, the insurrection, etc. is that many more people are actually eager to serve on a jury whereas before people avoided it like the plague. What that also means is that opinions have hardened on both sides. Whereas in the past you might have 2-3 out of 12 might give a shit with the rest just wanted to get out of there. Now you have more 5-5 who care with only 2 who just want get out of there. Changes the whole dynamic especially on a highly publicized and politicized trial. 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

30 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

What’s naive is thinking the entire jury thinks the same as you do and would automatically acquit.

If it makes you feel better it’s not over. They still could acquit. Nobody really knows why they’re taking their time. It’s just tea leave reading to speculate why that is. 

I apologize if I led you to believe I have any of my self-esteem or psyche tied up to the outcome of a trial half-way across the country. Although generally I think it is poor look when the most powerful institutions of our culture punch down on a minor and others react to disinformation and foment division, but that's probably just me. I just lack the need to find conspiracy and outrage under every rock, but I do generally hope justice is served.

Similarly, I think do not think I proffered myself as any sort of expert just expressing my opinion, which seemed to be the point of this thread.

[tantric superman 4667]

18 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Although generally I think it is poor look when the most powerful institutions of our culture punch down on a minor

I think it's a good look when our institutions of justice take a look at someone who crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm in an attempt to try to provoke violence and indeed killed two people.  

[Satchel 6908]

6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So this kid went to a BLM protest, with an AR-15, shot three people, killed two, and is claiming self defense?

And there are folks on here thinking this kid should walk?  Do I have this right? 

Yep. What’s the problem? Isn’t it SOP to take a big ass gun to a protest so that you can dispense first aid when you’re not killing people?

[Gidnik 3251]

6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So this kid went to a BLM protest, with an AR-15, shot three people, killed two, and is claiming self defense?

And there are folks on here thinking this kid should walk?  Do I have this right? 

So what about the one guy that he shot? That guy brought a gun to a BLM protest and pointed it at the kid. However the other kid didn’t shoot him until he pointed his gun at the other kid. By his own testimony. Where do you stand on that?

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

I apologize if I led you to believe I have any of my self-esteem or psyche tied up to the outcome of a trial half-way across the country. Although generally I think it is poor look when the most powerful institutions of our culture punch down on a minor and others react to disinformation and foment division, but that's probably just me. I just lack the need to find conspiracy and outrage under every rock, but I do generally hope justice is served.

Similarly, I think do not think I proffered myself as any sort of expert just expressing my opinion, which seemed to be the point of this thread.

Wasn’t trying to insult you but I probably do all the time anyway posting on the bathroom wall we call the net. If so I apologize.

I don’t care what the jury does here and neither should you or anyone else. All we should care about is was the process fair. I have criticized the judge but ultimately it doesn’t matter. 95 percent of the time the jury gets it right.
 

The real problem is almost always the system and the laws itself. That should be the focus, not the ultimate result of any particular case. In this case, it shows the obvious flaws of open carry laws, which we had previous figured out back in the 19th century Wild West. We’re regressing.

[washparkhorn 9935]

33 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

So what about the one guy that he shot? That guy brought a gun to a BLM protest

He carried it for self-defense. He was in reasonable in fear of his life and, in fact, he was shot by an armed counter-protestor advancing on the protestors. Agree?

 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

33 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Wasn’t trying to insult you but I probably do all the time anyway posting on the bathroom wall we call the net. If so I apologize.

I don’t care what the jury does here and neither should you or anyone else. All we should care about is was the process fair. I have criticized the judge but ultimately it doesn’t matter. 95 percent of the time the jury gets it right.
 

The real problem is almost always the system and the laws itself. That should be the focus, not the ultimate result of any particular case. In this case, it shows the obvious flaws of open carry laws, which we had previous figured out back in the 19th century Wild West. We’re regressing.

No worries and fair enough. I agree 100%.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

I think it's a good look when our institutions of justice take a look at someone who crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm in an attempt to try to provoke violence and indeed killed two people.  

Bless your heart. 

[zzzz 39]

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

So what about the one guy that he shot? That guy brought a gun to a BLM protest and pointed it at the kid. However the other kid didn’t shoot him until he pointed his gun at the other kid. By his own testimony. Where do you stand on that?

 

The men he shot in self-defense did what Trump claimed he would have done at Parkland. 

"I really believe, you don't know until you're tested, but I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon"

When America was great, Americans putting their lives at risk by chasing an armed killer were considered the heroes.

Kyle shot the proverbial "good guy with a gun."

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by zzzz

[workswithseed 2036]

7 hours ago, closetohumping said:

You know how to avoid being shot?  Don't loot or steal. If I'm in the looting mood and I come up to 10 Koreans with AKs, I'm moving on to the next liquor store and honestly I'm not mad at the Koreans for defending their shit.

Or you don't become national guard and go make some minors work.

 

[Gidnik 3251]

3 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

He carried it for self-defense. He was in reasonable in fear of his life and, in fact, he was shot by an armed counter-protestor advancing on the protestors. Agree?

 

He was a felon and he chased down the kid on trial. He was only shot after he pointed the gun he brought at the kid. According to his own testimony. 

[Gidnik 3251]

3 hours ago, tantric superman said:

I think it's a good look when our institutions of justice take a look at someone who crossed state lines with an illegally obtained firearm in an attempt to try to provoke violence and indeed killed two people.  

He didn’t bring a gun across state lines that was debunked last year. He lived closer than the guy shot in the arm. Kyle worked in Kenosha, his father lived there. He had more business in Kenosha than the guy shot in the arm. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

4 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

He carried it for self-defense. He was in reasonable in fear of his life and, in fact, he was shot by an armed counter-protestor advancing on the protestors. [Self Defense]  Agree? 

@Gidnik - First, answer my question above. Where's the flaw? That's where the concern lies. That's the lynchpin of the State's case.

The State doesn't represent victims. The State represents the State. The law needs to be fixed - pronto - by the Wisconsin House and Senate. This current law has a strong tendency to encourage violent behavior - by all sides who attach themselves onto protests.

In an age when most get their "news" from social media + if it bleeds, it leads "journalism" - we are setting up shooting galleries in states with similar laws. 

The law is contrary to public policy and needs a quick fix. This could get ugly for both sides, and no one wants that, do they?

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

He was a felon and he chased down the kid on trial. He was only shot after he pointed the gun he brought at the kid. According to his own testimony. 

Not admissible according to this judge. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by washparkhorn

[workswithseed 2036]

13 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

So, write a bigger insurance check then... It's not worth grabbing a gun and standing your post.  

To you it isn't, but if someone has only liability, you might want to protect your only means of getting to work. Just saying get better insurance for someone who can't afford it, and only has a hi-point between them and a few bad apples will probably more willing to protect their life line. 

[52-80 19096]

On 11/17/2021 at 3:51 AM, Wulaw Horn said:

maybe I’m just not Texan enough but I can’t understand taking someone’s life over the idea of defending property.

He didn't kill someone to protect a property.  He killed someone to protect himself, while he was under direct, imminent attack.  Important distinction.

 

Quote

I sure as shit don’t understand taking a gun to interject myself into a situation where I’m protecting someone else’s property

Just as nonsensical as taking a gun (or a chain) to interject oneself into a situation where one is ostensibly protesting someone else's arrest, like Ziminski and Grosskreutz did...

So why did they all do it - including Rittenhouse?  To posture.  It was a cold-war escalation.  They all played the game and some of them lost.

 

On 11/17/2021 at 4:08 AM, Brothahorn said:

Not guilty.

Just a dumbass. Which isn't against the law.

The media, fucked this up.

Yes, but also the media is compelled to spoonfeed their rabid viewers so hungry to have antagonists in their fantasized race-war. 

[52-80 19096]

14 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

So, write a bigger insurance check then... It's not worth grabbing a gun and standing your post.  

Would you be compelled to prevent wanton destruction to your own community or property?   (I wouldn't, but understand those that do)

Some of the 'defenders' intended to deter the arsony, by the mere presence of being there. 

If the charge is that Rittenhouse came there with his *mind* set on killing people, isn't there some irony in people here wishing that he get murdered?

 

[workswithseed 2036]

19 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Would you be compelled to prevent wanton destruction to your own community or property?   (I wouldn't, but understand those that do)

Some of the 'defenders' intended to deter the arsony, by the mere presence of being there. 

If the charge is that Rittenhouse came there with his *mind* set on killing people, isn't there some irony in people here wishing that he get murdered?

 

[South Austin 52144]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

If the charge is that Rittenhouse came there with his *mind* set on killing people, isn't there some irony in people here wishing that he get murdered?

[tantric superman 4667]

10 hours ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Bless your heart. 

You don't think there should have been a trial?

[fattyflattie 4636]

7 hours ago, Gidnik said:

He didn’t bring a gun across state lines that was debunked last year. He lived closer than the guy shot in the arm. Kyle worked in Kenosha, his father lived there. He had more business in Kenosha than the guy shot in the arm. 

But DiSiNfOrMaTiON 

[Anastasis 23394]

Would like to change my vote to hung jury. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

But DiSiNfOrMaTiON 

like it or not, there is a ton of disinformation out there about this case, because it has become so politicized.

i don't know why so many people are taking this so personally, aside from maybe the rittenhouses or the victims' families.

there is a ton of identity politics tied to this case for varying reasons, i reckon.

in the end, it's really about the gun, and that will, over the next 20 years or so, will be the reckoning, if shit like this continues. and i'm a gun guy, just not a "strap on a gun and go to a protest" guy. it's a dangerous precedent about to be set.

[workswithseed 2036]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Would like to change my vote to hung jury. 

Yikes,  I know there's a mob outside, but this is too much.

[fattyflattie 4636]

It’s less about people caring about this dipshit than it is sickened by the media portrayal, the presidents comments, and the lust for him to be convicted even if it doesn’t follow the law, because feelies.   @wildcat09 losing his shit on the troll in the Ga trial thread over spreading disinformation, but nowhere to be found here. Wonder why.   Jury being tampered with by outsiders and fear of being doxxed.   In this thread people ok with him being murdered later if found innocent.  If found innocent by the actual law.  Amazing.  The media set this up to be incendiary and many bought in without ever looking into it.  
 

Fwiw I’ve taken the stance the entire time that everyone involved FAFO and this dude is going to potentially slip thru the cracks by luck that everything kind of went his way (legally).   

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

in the end, it's really about the gun, and that will, over the next 20 years or so, will be the reckoning, if shit like this continues. and i'm a gun guy, just not a "strap on a gun and go to a protest" guy. it's a dangerous precedent about to be set.

Me too. I’ll continue to single issue vote it as well. Maybe we can start enforcing against these assholes burning down our country at some point? 

[DDD Dad 14251]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

the presidents comments

Other than the tweet during last year's campaign that Trump supporters seized upon out-of-context, what other comments has the current President made about Rittenhouse?