News of the Day III

[RSchmitz]

Rittenhouse came upon LEOs. They gave him a bottle of water and encouragement.

Yep, doesn’t sound like something you would do to people you want vacating the area.

[Donnie D]

You have a trial and plenty of video evidence to go off of. It takes minimal effort to check for yourself that what you are spewing isn't accurate.

Also, do you have a shred of credible evidence that he bragged, or are you just perpetuating BS that you've heard?

He wore a Free as Fuck t-shirt and hung around with Proud Boys drinking alcohol. A remorseful kid.

[Donnie D]

Yep, doesn’t sound like something you would do to people you want vacating the area.

No it sounds like police assholes that were intent on supporting the racist Proud Boys and vigilantes that were on the street. Why the police chief still has a job is beyond me.

[RSchmitz]

Yes, amazingly true.

The Milwaukee Journal posted an opinion piece on the verdict. The newspaper also raised an interesting puzzle: If “two people openly carry guns and point them at each other, whose self-defense claim takes priority?” And therein lies a large measure of confusion doesn’t it? Shoot first, ask questions later, and claim “self defense”?

Do you have a link to that opinion piece or did you make up the quotes yourself? It is really, really, really clear who didn’t watch the trial or understand the law and doesn’t care to. This isn’t some huge ambiguous gotcha question, the law states that if you provoke someone to cause you great bodily harm that you are not authorized to use a firearm to shoot them. If you point your gun at someone to provoke them to point their gun at you or simultaneously, the law doesn’t kick in and the person who fires goes to jail.

This was literally the prosecution’s best angle and the one they took but couldn’t convince the jury of. If Rittenhouse is yelling profanities, he doesn’t get to use self defense. If he makes aggressive gestures which can be seen as threatening, he doesn’t get to use self defense. If he points his gun anywhere other than the ground, he doesn’t get to use self defense. If he was doing anything other than standing there or helping, he doesn’t get to use self defense. The prosecution tried to argue that Rittenhouse extinguishing the fire Rosenbaum started was a provocation, and the jury did not buy it.

[Bolthed]

Yep, doesn’t sound like something you would do to people you want vacating the area.

Because LEOs always make the right judgement call

WTF man? Are you saying they were right to give him encouragement when he looks 12 years old and is caring an assault rifle? The failed in every way. They failed to protect their community (you know, their job) by not even remotely considering him a threat. And they failed to protect this child
who would have been disarmed if they had just looked at his ID.

This is fucking insane — the idea that you can take an assault rifle to an event as emotional as a protest or demonstration and get waved through with water and encouragement and not so much an inquisitive glance by the police as long as you say the magic words “Back the blue!” This case has deep implications.

The mom can’t face repercussions for being a horrible parent.
The cops can’t face repercussions because they have ironclad immunity and are oblivious to shame.
Rittenhouse still has to face civil court and (hopefully) federal charges.

This kind of behavior, this wanton disregard for life, this intentional or unintentional support for racist violence, must not stand, must not be condoned, must not be encouraged.

[RSchmitz]

Because LEOs always make the right judgement call

WTF man? Are you saying they were right to give him encouragement when he looks 12 years old and is caring an assault rifle? The failed in every way. They failed to protect their community (you know, their job) by not even remotely considering him a threat. And they failed to protect this child
who would have been disarmed if they had just looked at his ID.

This is fucking insane — the idea that you can take an assault rifle to an event as emotional as a protest or demonstration and get waved through with water and encouragement and not so much an inquisitive glance by the police as long as you say the magic words “Back the blue!” This case has deep implications.

The mom can’t face repercussions for being a horrible parent.
The cops can’t face repercussions because they have ironclad immunity and are oblivious to shame.
Rittenhouse still has to face civil court and (hopefully) federal charges.

This kind of behavior, this wanton disregard for life, this intentional or unintentional support for racist violence, must not stand, must not be condoned, must not be encouraged.

I said literally the same thing you said, that the police encouraged him to stay around. I thought we were talking about Rittenhouse, I didn't realize that was my cue to bash on the police. Yes, they did not do their job.

[RSchmitz]

He wore a Free as Fuck t-shirt and hung around with Proud Boys drinking alcohol. A remorseful kid.

He spent his 18th birthday in jail, he just got out and was also celebrating not having to spend the next year in a cage. Your statement was that he was out gloating about the shootings is a lie.

[Donnie D]

It's not a lie. It's my opinion.

[Puckhead]

Do you have a link to that opinion piece or did you make up the quotes yourself? It is really, really, really clear who didn’t watch the trial or understand the law and doesn’t care to. This isn’t some huge ambiguous gotcha question, the law states that if you provoke someone to cause you great bodily harm that you are not authorized to use a firearm to shoot them. If you point your gun at someone to provoke them to point their gun at you or simultaneously, the law doesn’t kick in and the person who fires goes to jail.

This was literally the prosecution’s best angle and the one they took but couldn’t convince the jury of. If Rittenhouse is yelling profanities, he doesn’t get to use self defense. If he makes aggressive gestures which can be seen as threatening, he doesn’t get to use self defense. If he points his gun anywhere other than the ground, he doesn’t get to use self defense. If he was doing anything other than standing there or helping, he doesn’t get to use self defense. The prosecution tried to argue that Rittenhouse extinguishing the fire Rosenbaum started was a provocation, and the jury did not buy it.

C'mon. You really think I just make shit up??

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kyle-rittenhouse-editorial-vigilantes-wisconsin-state-journal_n_61998fdee4b025be1adcf1af

The entire editorial can be seen at the bottom of the Huffpost article.

Their "puzzle" point still stands. Why not try offering your opinion/solution to it??

[Donnie D]

Do you have a link to that opinion piece or did you make up the quotes yourself? It is really, really, really clear who didn’t watch the trial or understand the law and doesn’t care to. This isn’t some huge ambiguous gotcha question, the law states that if you provoke someone to cause you great bodily harm that you are not authorized to use a firearm to shoot them. If you point your gun at someone to provoke them to point their gun at you or simultaneously, the law doesn’t kick in and the person who fires goes to jail.

This was literally the prosecution’s best angle and the one they took but couldn’t convince the jury of. If Rittenhouse is yelling profanities, he doesn’t get to use self defense. If he makes aggressive gestures which can be seen as threatening, he doesn’t get to use self defense. If he points his gun anywhere other than the ground, he doesn’t get to use self defense. If he was doing anything other than standing there or helping, he doesn’t get to use self defense. The prosecution tried to argue that Rittenhouse extinguishing the fire Rosenbaum started was a provocation, and the jury did not buy it.

In Florida there was an argument between two parties. The first party left and went home. The second party got their gun, went to the first party's home and got into a second verbal altercation. The second party ended up killing the first party and claimed "stand your ground." He won and was not prosecuted.

He provoked the situation by going to the second parties house with the intent getting the first party to get into a confrontation and he was able to shoot him and get away with it.

The same thing with Rittenhouse. He intended to go there and start something, he did and committed murder.

[Bolthed]

Crossing state lines while illegally possessing an illegally obtained gun = federal charges

Not sure if there’s a way to file any federal charges for murder or negligent manslaughter, but it would send an important message. Also, the absence of federal charges would send the opposite message to right-wing gun nuts: “Bring your guns to rallies, protests and demonstrations and our courts will defend you.”

[RSchmitz]

C'mon. You really think I just make shit up??

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kyle-rittenhouse-editorial-vigilantes-wisconsin-state-journal_n_61998fdee4b025be1adcf1af

The entire editorial can be seen at the bottom of the Huffpost article.

Their "puzzle" point still stands. Why not try offering your opinion/solution to it??

I already answered that puzzle, the author should know the answer to that situation as well if they watched the case. If two people simultaneously point their guns at each other, without provocation, neither can claim self defense. The lawyers showed that Grosskreutz advanced and aimed his gun at Rittenhouse first. If you noticed, sprinkled throughout that article they mention how prosecution tried to claim that Rittenhouse was acting aggressive and provocative. They even suggested that Rittenhouse chased Rosenbaum with an extinguisher, an outright lie with no eyewitness testimony or video. There was no proof of provocation at all. My opinion? Is that guns should be outlawed, police should be present in force to discourage rioting, and the media should report factual evidence instead of inciting with false narratives.

[RSchmitz]

Crossing state lines while illegally possessing an illegally obtained gun = federal charges

Not sure if there’s a way to file any federal charges for murder or negligent manslaughter, but it would send an important message. Also, the absence of federal charges would send the opposite message to right-wing gun nuts: “Bring your guns to rallies, protests and demonstrations and our courts will defend you.”

The gun was already at Black's house in Kenosha, according to police records and court testimony. Because Black purchased the gun for him and agreed to hold the gun until he turned 18, the purchase of the gun by Rittenhouse from Black was legal. What Black did was illegal and he has a trial.

Both of these points were brought up when Rittenhouse was cross examined

[RSchmitz]

In Florida there was an argument between two parties. The first party left and went home. The second party got their gun, went to the first party's home and got into a second verbal altercation. The second party ended up killing the first party and claimed "stand your ground." He won and was not prosecuted.

He provoked the situation by going to the second parties house with the intent getting the first party to get into a confrontation and he was able to shoot him and get away with it.

Hard to believe, obviously something wrong with that

The same thing with Rittenhouse. He intended to go there and start something, he did and committed murder.

That is nothing like the Rittenhouse case. What did Rittenhouse do to provoke the situation? Did Rittenhouse pursue the decadents or did he flee? I think you've hit peak confirmation bias

[Bolthed]

Fuckin scary how quickly the alt-right is embracing this kid with hero worship. This country has a long, tragic history of violent responses to racial justice, even to demonstrations for racial justice.