Domestic terrorist attack in Wisconsin

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Just now, Doc said:

 

It's less of who tells the more credible story than it is just look at the footage.  If Rittenhouse gets acquitted, like he should, he can thank those who videotaped it for saving his bacon.  And those who videotaped it likely were on the side of the dead guys, and thus unwittingly helped Rittenhouse avoid prosecution.

Fair enough, but  I have to tell you--it's a fair bet a number of jury members want to put him away on the murder charges regardless of what the footage shows. It's simple math really,  gun control is a hot button issue, and invariably when someone shoots another the instinct for some is "he's guilty".      On the other hand, if the defense made a compelling argument that he had no choice in the moment, it will be enough. 

 

By the way--while you see it as crystal clear, and I lean toward the self-defense angle, the jury has had the case for two days and it seems they don't see it as a slam dunk.  Narratives matter.  

[Chef Jim]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's less of who tells the more credible story than it is just look at the footage.  If Rittenhouse gets acquitted, like he should, he can thank those who videotaped it for saving his bacon.  And those who videotaped it likely were on the side of the dead guys, and thus unwittingly helped Rittenhouse avoid prosecution.

 

I have not watched the videos that much.  But what drew him away from his defensive stand in front of the business he was protecting to in the middle of the street with his weapon? 

[Doc]

37 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

My question is incredibly germane.  If he was there to protect a business was he acting in an offensive manner by being in the street instead of in front of the business he was protecting?

 

I'm playing a huge devil's advocate here.  It's what I do. 

 

I know exactly what you're doing and I'm not taking any offense.  It's a discussion.

 

It actually doesn't matter what he was doing there: I just gave you what he said he was doing there.  Again he's got every right to be there because this is a free country.  We also (now) know what he was allowed to have an AR-15 on him.  If someone took offense to him, that's on them.  It still is no justification for assaulting him.

 

 

53 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Fair enough, but  I have to tell you--it's a fair bet a number of jury members want to put him away on the murder charges regardless of what the footage shows. It's simple math really,  gun control is a hot button issue, and invariably when someone shoots another the instinct for some is "he's guilty".      On the other hand, if the defense made a compelling argument that he had no choice in the moment, it will be enough. 

 

By the way--while you see it as crystal clear, and I lean toward the self-defense angle, the jury has had the case for two days and it seems they don't see it as a slam dunk.  Narratives matter.  

 

They're in fear for their lives.  Cameras should not have been allowed in the courtroom.

[Dukestreetking]

My goodness. I don't have the time right now to provide all the "facts in evidence"...but...

 

I'll just address why he was in the street (not that it matters in the law of self-defense).

 

A-hole #1 started a dumpster fire. KR moved from his position to extinguish the fire, as he had done twice previously.

 

This further inflamed AH#1, which then led to him chasing KR down the street (recall the "friendly, friendly, friendly" shout fr KR in the car parking lot, captured on vid).

[Chef Jim]

48 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I know exactly what you're doing and I'm not taking any offense.  It's a discussion.

 

It actually doesn't matter what he was doing there: I just gave you what he said he was doing there.  Again he's got every right to be there because this is a free country.  We also (now) know what he was allowed to have an AR-15 on him.  If someone took offense to him, that's on them.  It still is no justification for assaulting him.

 

 

 

They're in fear for their lives.  Cameras should not have been allowed in the courtroom.

Again I don’t know all the facts but how did he end up in the street?  Was he dragged there or did he go there on his own volition?  If he was there to protect the business I have no idea what he was doing in the street.  Was he in a defensive or an offensive position in the street?  Did he go after them?  

[OrangeBills]

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

Fair enough, but  I have to tell you--it's a fair bet a number of jury members want to put him away on the murder charges regardless of what the footage shows. It's simple math really,  gun control is a hot button issue, and invariably when someone shoots another the instinct for some is "he's guilty".      On the other hand, if the defense made a compelling argument that he had no choice in the moment, it will be enough. 

 

By the way--while you see it as crystal clear, and I lean toward the self-defense angle, the jury has had the case for two days and it seems they don't see it as a slam dunk.  Narratives matter.  

 

 

Correct, Narratives matter.

 

What country we once had is lost.

[Doc]

31 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Again I don’t know all the facts but how did he end up in the street?  Was he dragged there or did he go there on his own volition?  If he was there to protect the business I have no idea what he was doing in the street.  Was he in a defensive or an offensive position in the street?  Did he go after them?  

 

Did you get your answer?

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Did you get your answer?

Of course not. How did he end up in the street is he was there to protect a business? 

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Of course not. How did he end up in the street is he was there to protect a business? 

 

You should have.  It was in the post above yours.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Doc

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

You should have.  It was in the post above yours.

So he was chased into the street?  
 

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

So he was chased into the street?  

 

It doesn't matter.

[Chef Jim]

13 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It doesn't matter.

Absolutely it does. If he chased them he now becomes the aggressor which, in my mind, greatly reduces the self defense argument.  

[Dukestreetking]

@Chef Jim

 

I want to work with you on this and...I don't want to sound pedantic.

 

But very humble suggestion: start w the 4 basics of privileged self-defense. I've noted them up-thread.

 

Once those are in mind, it will help you sift the wheat fr the chaff in this case (doesn't mean, per se, the jury won't convict...but they shouldn't).

 

That said, I'll admit my bias: I am an absolute hawk on self-defense, as I believe the right arises from natural vice positive law.

 

Read the Federalist papers to understand that position.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Absolutely it does. If he chased them he now becomes the aggressor which, in my mind, greatly reduces the self defense argument.  

 

He wasn't chasing them.  Again re-read what Duke wrote.

[SCBills]

The fact this has been going on deliberations for two days and wasn’t simply a Day One acquittal has made me lose faith, already, in this process.  
 

It seems the jury is operating out of fear rather than justice.  
 

And it’s probably about time that those on the right start playing by the same rules as leftists.   These people are no longer engaging in policy differences.. they want to hurt those who disagree and have zero principles on which they stand.  
 

Its time to fight back against these people with the same tactics.  

[B-Man]

 

 

Back to today:

 

 

RITTENHOUSE: 

They released HD drone footage of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting Joseph Rosenbaum and it couldn’t be more clear what happened.

This is the same footage jurors were only allowed to see in low-def during the trial.

 

https://notthebee.com/article/they-released-hd-drone-footage-of-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-joseph-rosenbaum-and-it-couldnt-be-more-clear-what-happened

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

5 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Why was he there? 

Who cares? He said he was there to protect property and was putting out fires. Regardless it’s irrelevant. He had every right to be there amongst the lawless rioters. They wanted to attack him because he wasn’t “ in their side”. He had every right to defend himself . 

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 hours ago, SCBills said:

The fact this has been going on deliberations for two days and wasn’t simply a Day One acquittal has made me lose faith, already, in this process.  
 

It seems the jury is operating out of fear rather than justice.  
 

And it’s probably about time that those on the right start playing by the same rules as leftists.   These people are no longer engaging in policy differences.. they want to hurt those who disagree and have zero principles on which they stand.  
 

Its time to fight back against these people with the same tactics.  

 

To the left its not a question of law and order, self-defense, or Constitutional protections.  Or a trial by jury hearing testimony and evaluating the evidence to render a verdict.  Its simply that some random guy dared to intervene in a protest/riot that was sanctioned by the political left where the police were ordered not enforce the law and as a result of his presence 2 politically protected members of the riot were killed and 1 politically protected member of the riot was wounded by a politically unprotected outsider.  A politically unprotected outsider that's not a member of the left can't be allowed to get away with that.  Because their fear is what's next?  Every time they call off the police and allow their protected political organizations somewhere to riot, harm people, and destroy property all of a sudden random private citizen(s) or groups will be empowered to take action and eliminate the threat to their persons and property regardless of the politicians order the police to stand-down with the intent of letting their supporters riot.  One potential result, no more riots as anarchists get the message they're "fair game" and the protection the politicians provide in exchange for their services is not longer possible.  For the political  left that's worst case and it can't be allowed.   

Edited November 18, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[Doc]

9 hours ago, SCBills said:

The fact this has been going on deliberations for two days and wasn’t simply a Day One acquittal has made me lose faith, already, in this process.  
 

It seems the jury is operating out of fear rather than justice.  
 

And it’s probably about time that those on the right start playing by the same rules as leftists.   These people are no longer engaging in policy differences.. they want to hurt those who disagree and have zero principles on which they stand.  
 

Its time to fight back against these people with the same tactics.  

 

Yeah, the word needs to get to the jurors that if they convict, they'll still be doxxed and/or whatever the other side is threatening.  So do what's right.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 hours ago, OrangeBills said:

 

 

Correct, Narratives matter.

 

What country we once had is lost.

I think it’s more that we have access to so much more information than ever before, and that things like this have happened since the dawn of time.  Malicious prosecution, incompetence during investigations, tilting the jury pool is hardly new.  

 

In an odd way, what we’re seeing is progress as the benefit of the tilt extends to people that historically may not have benefited from it.  Looking at the Jussie Smollette case, if you change his name to Jussie Kennedy is anyone surprised by the influence of money, wealth and power?

 

I’d bet most people doing their jobs are honest and decent people trying to do the right thing.  This case is a disaster, a travesty if for now other reason than whomever was in charge of Kenosha decided to let it burn and anarchy reign.  Just about everything that followed was predictable.