Jump to content

Rittenhouse


StringJunky
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Neuron said:

So basically he is the first attacker now. The fact that he went armed makes him the one who started the fight, right? What if he didn't manage to protect himself?

Would have, could have, might have.... all depend on the law, its interpretation and who does the interpreting.

Quote

Would the activists be the murderers, or were the activists the ones practicing self-defense because their threat was him armed?

You see that coming at you, armed, loaded, cocked and cocky, you might feel threatened. I'm pretty sure I would.

Quote

you find his actions wrong and me too. The difference is that you are trying to misinterpret the law to make him guilty of murdering

I haven't said murdering. But he is certainly guilty of several crimes, committed knowingly and with premeditation. 

Anyway, setting him free after killing and maiming 3 people, isn't even the worst aspect of the situation. The worst is that he won't get the help he needs and very probably grow up to be a very much more dangerous person. He's doing the whole FOX circus act; he's a right wing hero - all his wettest dreams are coming out the barrel of that big macho gun. And, as if it couldn't get any worse, his example is empowering a whole army of little cop wannabees. Watch the mass shooting rate go up - again. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081  

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 

"But the law of self-defense in Wisconsin allows someone to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

 

 

+1

So...essentially two totally "law abiding" citizens can meet in the street, and because each is legally allowed to shoot the other if they feel threatened...and since each is armed with deadly force...they should feel threatened...so...what's to stop them?

I'm sure there's more to it than that...but if it's a crowd and not just two individuals...with emotionally opposing views...how much of a margin of safety can exist?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 

Why are Americans so intransigent in not changing their constitutuion that is what, 250 years old now? That's as old as Australia is as a nation!

 

Twice as old?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So...essentially two totally "law abiding" citizens can meet in the street, and because each is legally allowed to shoot the other if they feel threatened...and since each is armed with deadly force...they should feel threatened...so...what's to stop them?

Not even the testimony of a survivor, apparently. If you can make sure yours are the only "feels" that are heard, the WI judge will set you free.

Just remember that if you have a plastic bag, or a skateboard, or even a handgun, you shouldn't feel threatened by someone with an AR-15, because if you do, he can claim you were going to use it to take his AR-15 and harm or possibly kill him. To be on the safe side, others who shouldn't feel threatened include people with phones, people with water bottles, and people with hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2021 at 7:58 PM, StringJunky said:

I was wondering what you guys over the pond think of today's judgement? 

Did you (or participants of this thread) bother to watch entire "accident" ("video")?

 

On 11/19/2021 at 8:20 PM, swansont said:

The default is that if you're white, it is legally plausible to fear for your life from anyone with darker skin or different views, regardless of circumstances. This is just another example.

Victims were black/darker skin.. ?

Look up data again to verify it..

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Did you (or participants of this thread) bother to watch entire "accident"?

 

Unfortunately, I've been following it via Reuters and AP several times a day since it started. What did you mean by "bothering to watch", Sensei?

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Funny, I used this young punk as an example in the "what is justice" thread, where we had the equivalent of crocodile tears being spilt for similar perpetrators rather then the vicitm, along with that other bare breasted turkey with the horns that took over the White House. 

A couple of questions...this happened in the reign of Trump, correct? Did we get any criticism from the White House on that? How was the jury selected? Were there any African Americans in that jury? 

What I did find was https://people.com/crime/why-was-kyle-rittenhouse-found-not-guilty-of-2-fatal-shootings-during-2020-black-lives-matter-protest/  "he answered a citizen militia's call on social media to protect Kenosha businesses from protesters". "The shootings by Rittenhouse quickly inflamed the debate about vigilantism and attracted pro-gun activists and allies to his side, including then-President Donald Trump, who chose not to denounce his actions. Politicians and activists on both the left and the right have invoked the Rittenhouse case in appeals to energize supporters, with Congressional Republicans celebrating the outcome and Democrats lamenting it, reports"

Then I found this crazy example of American law....https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit  

"But the law of self-defense in Wisconsin allows someone to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

"And if so, he's allowed to use essentially as much force as he thinks is reasonably necessary to stop the threat," said Kim.

Rosenbaum, the first person Rittenhouse shot, had acted belligerently throughout the night, according to video evidence and witness testimony. Later, he chased Rittenhouse through a used-car lot. Rittenhouse and another witness both testified that Rosenbaum had reached for Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse shot four times within a second, killing him".

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Jesus Christ almighty, I mean wtf!!! I am staggered that it seems this little punk seemed to have acted within his rights, according to the law in that state. Can't Biden under some federal jurisitiction, get that nonsense scrapped? I mean being able to buy and carry guns willy nilly in America is crazy enough, but when you have laws such as that, it beggars belief! Are Americans still fixed in there old wild west days of the likes of Billy the Kid, and Wyatt Earp? The little punk should be locked up and the keys thrown away, but he has been found not guilty instead. 

Why are Americans so intransigent in not changing their constitutuion that is what, 250 years old now? That's as old as Australia is as a nation!

The USA is known as the leader of the free world, and has given us great men and examples of leaders...Washington, JFK, numerous scientists such as Feynman, Oppenheimer, Sagan, Edison, Vera Rubin etc etc etc, and the list goes on and on...orginizations such as NASA, Smithsonian Institute etc. It deserves that position and should be respected for that position. But this sort of nonsense has its enemies and potential enemies, as well as allies and friends, seeing this great nation as a backwood society, driven by religious fanatics and rednecks. One can only wonder!!! Ahh well. Perhaps another "great"may emerge to lead your nation. Personally and I don't know a terrible lot about her, but I do like your vice President Kamala Harris.

Every nation has it's dubious, reprehensible underbelly and conditions are ripe for them to thrive atm... in many areas of the world as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Unfortunately, I've been following it via Reuters and AP several times a day since it started. What did you mean by "bothering to watch", Sensei?

I wasn't talking about the trial... I was talking about the "accident"/"shooting"... a real movie...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

He defended himself because he was attacked,

Right.

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

but he went out of his way to put himself in that position...clear?

Right.

Isn't what they want? Everybody to carry gun "to shoot bad guys".. ? Weaponize the all teachers etc. ? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/21/donald-trump-solution-to-school-shootings-arm-teachers-with-guns

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's what the far-right wingnuts. yes.

 

..but the question is: if such brainwashed far-right wingnuts are on the street, they should be "de-weaponized" the way they did (and are being killed)....

 

How to differentiate "brainwashed far-right wingnuts" from "brainwashed far-left wingnuts" from "brainwashed wingnut" from "terrorist" from "gangster" from "mob member" or from [put anything] in the middle of action.. which is very 'dramatic'/'dynamic'..

 

Looking at the video of the whole accident, I find him not guilty..

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sensei said:

 

..but the question is: if such brainwashed far-right wingnuts are on the street, they should be "de-weaponized" the way they did (and are being killed)....

 

How to differentiate "brainwashed far-right wingnuts" from "brainwashed far-left wingnuts" or from "brainwashed wingnut" or from "terrorist" or from "gangster" or from "mob member" or from [put anything] in the middle of action.. which is very 'dramatic'/'dynamic'..

 

Looking at the video of the whole accident, I find him not guilty..

 

What, travelling 20 miles with an assault rifle for no plausible reason other han that it excited him. Youneed to look at his intent for being their with a lethal weapon.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

He defended himself because he was attacked, but he went out of his way to put himself in that position...clear?

however, the law says he had every right to be there; just as the protesters did.

Even all the claims of his gun being illegal are false; because of a mix-up regarding barrel length, his gun was legally owned, and allowed to be carried.
Grosskreutz, one of his victims, who pointed a gun at Ritterhouse, was carrying his illegally, as he is a convicted felon.
Freeland, one of the other victims, kicked Ritterhouse in the head.
This, all according to witness reports and testimony.

I don't think it's a stretch that the jury believed he felt threatened.

Sure, he is/was a stupid kid, who orchestrated his own peoblems; I think his mentality makes him dangerous and he should be in jail, and not on the streets. 
But according to the law, as it currently stands, the jury returned the right verdict.

Stage a protest to have the laws changed, if you must.
Just don't allow any idiots carrying weapons to attend.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

however, the law says he had every right to be there; just as the protesters did.

Even all the claims of his gun being illegal are false; because of a mix-up regarding barrel length, his gun was legally owned, and allowed to be carried.
Grosskreutz, one of his victims, who pointed a gun at Ritterhouse, was carrying his illegally, as he is a convicted felon.
Freeland, one of the other victims, kicked Ritterhouse in the head.
This, all according to witness reports and testimony.

I don't think it's a stretch that the jury believed he felt threatened.

Sure, he is/was a stupid kid, who orchestrated his own peoblems; I think his mentality makes him dangerous and he should be in jail, and not on the streets. 
But according to the law, as it currently stands, the jury returned the right verdict.

Stage a protest to have the laws changed, if you must.
Just don't allow any idiots carrying weapons to attend.

He didn't have a permit.

Quote

The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.

In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit. In Wisconsin, it is legal for adults to carry firearms in public without a license if the gun is visible. However, to open carry, you must be at least 18 years old.

Wisconsin law stipulates that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records.

John Monroe, an attorney who specializes in gun rights, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that there’s an exception for rifles and shotguns, which is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt, that could apply. But Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/

It doesn't matter, the judge had his own popularity to consider and his election chances next round (cue my question about circuit judges being elected). It all smells a bit pooey. As a side note, the judge had a 'God Bless America' ringtone that he allowed to ring during sessions  and ostentatiuosly honoured veterans that were present... stink or what? 

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What, traveling 20 miles with an assault rifle for no plausible reason other han that it excited him.

Did he shoot somebody, traveling 20 miles (~30 km)?

If you take something from house, you don't throw away after 10 miles.. Regardless of distance..

Distance does not matter. Intentions do matter.

45 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You need to look at his intent for being their with a lethal weapon.

Everybody has some lethal weapon at hand..

I have keyboard and mouse at hand, for some mortal human, they are lethal weapons.. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Did he shoot somebody, traveling 20 miles (~30 km)?

If you take something from house, you don't throw away after 10 miles.. Regardless of distance..

Distance does not matter. Intentions do matter.

Everybody has some lethal weapon at hand..

I have keyboard and mouse at hand, for some mortal human, they are lethal weapons.. ;)

 

You are stretching it a bit, Sensei. He had a a brand new gun... it gave him a metaphorical erection. he wanted to pose with it in public. It's only designed purpose is to put a hole in people... it was an AR-15.... a copy of an assault rifle.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

What, travelling 20 miles with an assault rifle for no plausible reason other han that it excited him. Youneed to look at his intent for being their with a lethal weapon.

Yes, the operative word that should have sealed his fate.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

.Just don't allow any idiots carrying weapons to attend.

How do you sort out the idiots  from reasonable thinking people. Afterall you did elect Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
3 hours ago, beecee said:

Why are Americans so intransigent in not changing their constitutuion that is what, 250 years old now? That's as old as Australia is as a nation!

Twice as old?

Of course! thanks for clearing that stuff up for me. I was thinking of 1770 rather then 1901.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, they've changed the US constitution 27 times. The second amendment is much in the news, only because it is much abused. Rittenhouse and Jake Angeli were not in any "well-regulated militia". The gun lobbies like to wave that half-sentence at legislators, who promptly collapse in heap - not because they can't argue with the constitution, but because they lack an internal skeletal structure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Anyway, they've changed the US constitution 27 times. The second amendment is much in the news, only because it is much abused. Rittenhouse and Jake Angeli were not in any "well-regulated militia". The gun lobbies like to wave that half-sentence at legislators, who promptly collapse in heap - not because they can't argue with the constitution, but because they lack an internal skeletal structure. 

When the 21st century GOP says 'Founding Fathers' they mean 'God Almighty', therefore, the constitution is written in stone and can no longer be amended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

And once again a good idea, is turned into a religion. 

The original Constitution, as written then, belongs in a museum as a curio of US history, just  like our Magna Carta. It should be a document that morphs with the needs of the prevailing times. To me, it's like Islamic fundamentalists demanding people live according to the Koran, as written in 6AD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The original Constitution, as written then, belongs in a museum as a curio of US history, just  like our Magna Carta. It should be a document that morphs with the needs of the prevailing times. To me, it's like Islamic fundamentalists demanding people live according to the Koran, as written in 6AD.

A good idea is a good idea, no matter when it was written...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.