Domestic terrorist attack in Wisconsin

[Doc]

12 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

Facts are obvious in this case... 17 year old murdered two people in the streets of Kenosha.

 

Yup.  In self defense.

 

Edit:  Sorry, not murder.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Doc

[Westside]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

In spite of some serious flaws with that characterization, I think the jury ends up voting that way.  The folks watching the outcome closely will fall into two categories—those who think he was railroaded and found  guilty of a crime he didn’t commit who will be disappointed, and the anarchists who have already demonstrated a sincere willingness to burn down &*$# and rage for extended periods of time.  The govt already mobilized the national guard, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what a not guilty verdict will yield.  In the end, it boils down to one man’s life v more anarchy and bloodshed.  
 

 

Let's hope you're wrong.

[Orlando Buffalo]

2 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

Facts are obvious in this case... 17 year old murdered two people in the streets of Kenosha.

Your sarcasm is hard to tell in this format. I don't recommend coming in with just sarcasm at this point.

[Dukestreetking]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

In spite of some serious flaws with that characterization, I think the jury ends up voting that way.  The folks watching the outcome closely will fall into two categories—those who think he was railroaded and found  guilty of a crime he didn’t commit who will be disappointed, and the anarchists who have already demonstrated a sincere willingness to burn down &*$# and rage for extended periods of time.  The govt already mobilized the national guard, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what a not guilty verdict will yield.  In the end, it boils down to one man’s life v more anarchy and bloodshed.  
 

 

 

Interesting post...I realize where you're coming from (per prior msg) and it is indeed an old saw that juries vote on emotion, not the law.

 

The schwerpunkt in this case is the Rosenbaum encounter, imv. If not justified, the house comes tumbling down.

 

However, the state has not weaved a "beyond reasonable doubt" narrative fact pattern, judged v doctrinal self-defense elements: innocence, imminence, proportionality, and reasonableness (avoidance not applicable under WI law). The jury should therefore acquit on homicide charges.

 

To say otherwise is to not understand the rich tradition of self-defense law, nor the constitutional case law that develops the 2A "regulated militia..." clause, nor the present "facts in evidence".

 

Wildcards are reckless endangerment count, jury instructions re provocation, and poor defense closing.

 

He may get torqued on the RE charge if the jury thinks, well, we have to convict him of something.

[Orlando Buffalo]

27 minutes ago, Dukestreetking said:

 

Interesting post...I realize where you're coming from (per prior msg) and it is indeed an old saw that juries vote on emotion, not the law.

 

The schwerpunkt in this case is the Rosenbaum encounter, imv. If not justified, the house comes tumbling down.

 

However, the state has not weaved a "beyond reasonable doubt" narrative fact pattern, judged v doctrinal self-defense elements: innocence, imminence, proportionality, and reasonableness (avoidance not applicable under WI law). The jury should therefore acquit on homicide charges.

 

To say otherwise is to not understand the rich tradition of self-defense law, nor the constitutional case law that develops the 2A "regulated militia..." clause, nor the present "facts in evidence".

 

Wildcards are reckless endangerment count, jury instructions re provocation, and poor defense closing.

 

He may get torqued on the RE charge if the jury thinks, well, we have to convict him of something.

Good points- I think Rittenhouse is an idiot who put himself in a bad situation but nothing is clearly criminal. If he is found guilty of murder then I will be disgusted with these jurors.

[Boatdrinks]

30 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Good points- I think Rittenhouse is an idiot who put himself in a bad situation but nothing is clearly criminal. If he is found guilty of murder then I will be disgusted with these jurors.

While I don’t think Rittenhouse is an idiot, I agree that a guilty verdict would be worthy of disgust.

[daz28]

The people he shot at after the first guy he shot thought they were disarming an active shooter.  You can literally hear people saying, "that dude just shot someone, stop him", and things like that.  

 

Hypothetically, if a "good guy with a gun" shoots the actual shooter(in a mass shooting incident), and there's a case of mistaken identity after, is it ok for him to shoot the people who BELIEVE that he is the bad guy, who are only trying to disarm him?  That's kind of what happens here, except if Rittenhouse isn't there illegally(too young to have the weapon), then it never happens at all.  I mean it sure looks like there's some negligence here.  If the law says you legally should not have been there in the first place, then that's negligence, right?  

[Beast]

5 hours ago, daz28 said:

The people he shot at after the first guy he shot thought they were disarming an active shooter.  You can literally hear people saying, "that dude just shot someone, stop him", and things like that.  

 

Hypothetically, if a "good guy with a gun" shoots the actual shooter(in a mass shooting incident), and there's a case of mistaken identity after, is it ok for him to shoot the people who BELIEVE that he is the bad guy, who are only trying to disarm him?  That's kind of what happens here, except if Rittenhouse isn't there illegally(too young to have the weapon), then it never happens at all.  I mean it sure looks like there's some negligence here.  If the law says you legally should not have been there in the first place, then that's negligence, right?  

You do realize that the weapons charge was dismissed because the District Attorney’s Office didn’t correctly interpret that statute?

 

And having a weapon legally or illegally has nothing to do with self defense and killing another.

 

Nothing. That is a separate issue.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Beast

[All_Pro_Bills]

6 hours ago, daz28 said:

The people he shot at after the first guy he shot thought they were disarming an active shooter.  You can literally hear people saying, "that dude just shot someone, stop him", and things like that.  

 

Hypothetically, if a "good guy with a gun" shoots the actual shooter(in a mass shooting incident), and there's a case of mistaken identity after, is it ok for him to shoot the people who BELIEVE that he is the bad guy, who are only trying to disarm him?  That's kind of what happens here, except if Rittenhouse isn't there illegally(too young to have the weapon), then it never happens at all.  I mean it sure looks like there's some negligence here.  If the law says you legally should not have been there in the first place, then that's negligence, right?  

I could agree with your disarming theory under different circumstances.  Such as a nightclub, a school, a church, or a shopping center, for examples.  Situations where people are going about their business without intent to cause harm to persons or property.  Situations where the motives and intent of individuals present are very clear.

But under the context of a riot in progress, where police and civil authority are unwilling to act or intervene, and some number of the crowd are committing criminal acts consistent with rioting and looting?  An environment where lawlessness is the temporary norm of behavior?  I can't agree.     

[Dukestreetking]

7 hours ago, daz28 said:

Hypothetically, if a "good guy with a gun" shoots the actual shooter(in a mass shooting incident), and there's a case of mistaken identity after, is it ok for him to shoot the people who BELIEVE that he is the bad guy, who are only trying to disarm him?

 

The legal standard in such a case is "good faith".

 

Ex: school shooting. Armed janitor and plain clothes police enter the building. Former shoots the latter b/c he thinks he's the bad guy.

 

Assuming other self-defense tests met, it's likely a "clean shoot" and janitor should not be prosecuted.

 

In the KR case, was he displaying attributes of an active shooter? I won't go into the facts in evidence, but the answer, to my mind, is no.

 

@Beast I believe answered correctly the other issue you raised.

[ALF]

It's a good idea to stay far away from someone carrying a long gun . Let the police do their job .

[SydneyBillsFan]

Lemme see if I have this right:

 

A white drug addict, confusing his skateboard for a Louisville Slugger and a convicted white child molester (you know - the guys that stick their digits into innocent kids) who threatens on multiple occasions to kill a minor, so that the minor is forced to defend himself against the aforementioned lowlifes - and the lunatic left are labelling the minor a murdering white supremicist?

 

Is that it?

 

If so, would I be out of line for saying "only in (Biden's) America"?

Edited November 16, 2021 by SydneyBillsFan

[Doc]

9 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

While I don’t think Rittenhouse is an idiot, I agree that a guilty verdict would be worthy of disgust.

 

If he's an idiot, so are the decedents.  Actually they're bigger ones because, well, they're deceased now. 

 

23 minutes ago, ALF said:

It's a good idea to stay far away from someone carrying a long gun . Let the police do their job .

 

And a short one as well.  See above.

 

4 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

Lemme see if I have this right:

 

A white drug addict, confusing his skateboard for a Louisville Slugger and a convicted white child molester (you know - the guys that stick their digits into innocent kids) who threatens on multiple occasions to kill a minor, so that the minor is forced to defend himself against the aforementioned lowlifes - and the lunatic left are labelling the minor a murdering white supremicist?

 

Am I out of line for saying "only in (Biden's) America"?

 

It pre-dated Joey.  It's amazing how a completely wrong initial narrative/impression continues to live on despite being proven false.

[BillStime]

9 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

Lemme see if I have this right:

 

A white drug addict, confusing his skateboard for a Louisville Slugger and a convicted white child molester (you know - the guys that stick their digits into innocent kids) who threatens on multiple occasions to kill a minor, so that the minor is forced to defend himself against the aforementioned lowlifes - and the lunatic left are labelling the minor a murdering white supremicist?

 

Is that it?

 

If so, would I be out of line for saying "only in (Biden's) America"?

 

Rittenhouse defense amounts to: They all had it coming

[SydneyBillsFan]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

It pre-dated Joey.  It's amazing how a completely wrong initial narrative/impression continues to live on despite being proven false.

 

Didn't Sleepy Joe throw oil onto the bonfire by starting the whole "he's a white supremicist' line?

 

And further to that, if the kid is found innocent and the verdict leads to Antifa-style riots, wouldn't the president therefore be at least partially responsible for those riots?

4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Rittenhouse defense amounts to: They all had it coming

 

So you think it's Ok for a guy to beat someone over the head with a skateboard whilst a convicted kiddie-fiddler makes repeated threats to kill you?

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

[Westside]

8 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

 

Didn't Sleepy Joe throw oil onto the bonfire by starting the whole "he's a white supremicist' line?

 

And further to that, if the kid is found innocent and the verdict leads to Antifa-style riots, wouldn't the president therefore be at least partially responsible for those riots?

 

So you think it's Ok for a guy to beat someone over the head with a skateboard whilst a convicted kiddie-fiddler makes repeated threats to kill you?

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

He’s a troll. Best to ignore him/her/it.

[BillStime]

7 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

 

Didn't Sleepy Joe throw oil onto the bonfire by starting the whole "he's a white supremicist' line?

 

And further to that, if the kid is found innocent and the verdict leads to Antifa-style riots, wouldn't the president therefore be at least partially responsible for those riots?

 

So you think it's Ok for a guy to beat someone over the head with a skateboard whilst a convicted kiddie-fiddler makes repeated threats to kill you?

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

No one knew who was a good guy or the bad guy w a gun…

 

You don’t show up to a riot w an AR-15  pretending to be a medic and not find yourself a target.

 

And no matter what sordid past those victims have has no relevance to what happened that night… but of course the likes of you, @Doc, and @B-Man bring it up because you are clearly not 100% confident in the defense.

[Beast]

18 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Rittenhouse defense amounts to: They all had it coming

 

Simply put, yes they did. If not for their actions they would not have been shot.

[All_Pro_Bills]

18 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

 

Didn't Sleepy Joe throw oil onto the bonfire by starting the whole "he's a white supremicist' line?

 

And further to that, if the kid is found innocent and the verdict leads to Antifa-style riots, wouldn't the president therefore be at least partially responsible for those riots?

Oh, if the verdict is "not guilty" there will definitely be riots.  And the White (the CRT nuts think using capital "W" in spelling White is racist!) Supremacist narrative is the go to move at the moment.  The press has already pumped out massive amounts of propaganda pushing their standard America is on trial here narrative and not one individual being judged in court based on the evidence and decision of a jury.  Any jury verdict that acquits will be portrayed as laced with one form of bias or another.  Guaranteed.  When you believe the world is full of victims there's no other way to see it. 

 

The question is what will be the response of liberal administrations running the city governments?  Are they going to just sit back and let it happen like they did in 2020 to make a political statement or are they going to enforce civil order?  It's a Catch-22.  If they enforce the law, make arrests, crack down on violent demonstrations they run the risk of antagonizing the activist base.  But if they let riots occur and pictures of these events are plastered all over the media, despite best efforts that will be made to suppress these images (Youtube blocking, Facebook & Google censoring, NBC ignoring, and more..), then they run the risk of alienating even more voters than they've pissed off since the inauguration in January 2021.  My guess is that its just not in their DNA and the natural tendency is not to let the chance for a good riot to go to waste.  

Edited November 16, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[SydneyBillsFan]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

No one knew who was a good guy or the bad guy w a gun…

 

You don’t show up to a riot w an AR-15  pretending to be a medic and not find yourself a target.

 

And no matter what sordid past those victims have has no relevance to what happened that night… but of course the likes of you, @Doc, and @B-Man bring it up because you are clearly not 100% confident in the defense.

 

Where is John McEnroe when you need him...