Rittenhouse jury just went to deliberate

[Flash]

The Judge is waiting for a verdict before he determines if it is a mistrial? That ain't right. He should declare it now.

 

[JohnDB]

Not following that... God or a bunch of dead guys...shampoo... whatever.

You were claiming that constitutional rights can be removed by a local ordinance or temporary mandate...

And I was explaining that they are not.

Kyle had a constitutional right to be at the car lots...as invited by the owner to protect them. The curfew is not relevant to his being there. He is at his residence when he is invited to be there under the law. No matter what else you want to claim. It became his residence when Sammy said so.

Those who were destroying cars and setting fires were the one breaking curfew...not Kyle. And since it is a constitutional right of Kyle's the charges had to be dropped and removed from consideration.

Kyle also has a right to self defense.
Which is why even the prosecutor has mentioned it...he knows already that when Kyle ran away from his attackers it was a case of perfect self defense. The only reason he is bringing the charges is because of political pressure from the Mayor and Governor.

 

[JohnDB]

That they are intrinsic to our nature is in no way diminished by the fact that they can be infringed upon by those with power.

That does not make it correct or moral but their infringement also does not change the source.

The constitution is clear...
The constitution is all about focusing on limiting the government's power...not on giving us rights. The rights we already have as you suggested. But when someone in legal circles acting as an agent of the Government claims that the defense has constitutional rights it means that in reality they can't do anything because of the constitution is limiting them.

 

[candycorn]

You were claiming that constitutional rights can be removed by a local ordinance or temporary mandate...

And I was explaining that they are not.

Yes they can. People were prohibited from gathering in large groups during the pandemic.

Kyle had a constitutional right to be at the car lots...as invited by the owner to protect them. The curfew is not relevant to his being there. He is at his residence when he is invited to be there under the law. No matter what else you want to claim. It became his residence when Sammy said so.

Kyle was on the street; not in a residence.

Those who were destroying cars and setting fires were the one breaking curfew...not Kyle.

Both were breaking curfew.

Kyle also has a right to self defense.
Which is why even the prosecutor has mentioned it...he knows already that when Kyle ran away from his attackers it was a case of perfect self defense. The only reason he is bringing the charges is because of political pressure from the Mayor and Governor.

If Kyle was in a residence...why was he "running away" from his attackers?

 

[JohnDB]

The Judge is waiting for a verdict before he determines if it is a mistrial? That ain't right. He should declare it now.

At this point there's a hearing already moving forward no matter what... prosecutorial misconduct is a serious charge...and it isn't taken lightly especially when there's a "preponderance of evidence" demonstrating that such has happened.

Verdict is not relevant anymore...

 

[JohnDB]

Yes they can. People were prohibited from gathering in large groups during the pandemic.

Kyle was on the street; not in a residence.

Both were breaking curfew.



If Kyle was in a residence...why was he "running away" from his attackers?

You need to go back to grade school and relearn Civics...
This is basic stuff every 5th grader knows all about.
Constitutional rights can't be usurped by anyone at anytime...not even the president.

If they are then there's a remedy for that...and it doesn't go well for the person who violated another person's rights. Just like the prosecuting attorney is in a LOT of hot water over the drone footage... regardless of the outcome of the trial. He violated Kyle's rights several times and in several ways. He has hell to pay when convicted for doing it.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You are clueless---actually he did provide minor first aid to several people that night--band aid type stuff.

Well, then you know more than Rittenhouse, because he testified to the fact that he didn't render first aid to anyone.

But please continue to tell me how I'm the clueless one, you ignorant *****...

Gun was legally his. Adults buy guns all the time, and give the guns to their children as gifts.

If he could own it legally, why didn't he purchase it? Why was it not registered in his name?

That gun purchase was made with the intent to do an end around on the law. Rittenhouse and Black both knew a gun retailer would never have sold the gun to Rittenhouse...

 

[Correll]

Meh, you may be the weirdest dude in the forum.

The kid was swarmed by a violent mob and held it together despite being hit with a rock, a skateboard and kicked in the head.

That you cannot see that as impressive, is you being a very small person.

 

[FA_Q2]

The constitution is clear...
The constitution is all about focusing on limiting the government's power...not on giving us rights. The rights we already have as you suggested. But when someone in legal circles acting as an agent of the Government claims that the defense has constitutional rights it means that in reality they can't do anything because of the constitution is limiting them.

Yes, that is a legal position. I was commenting on the very concept of rights. If you were speaking in a legal sense then I agree.

 

[FA_Q2]

If he could own it legally, why didn't he purchase it? Why was it not registered in his name?

That gun purchase was made with the intent to do an end around on the law. Rittenhouse and Black both knew a gun retailer would never have sold the gun to Rittenhouse...

Because it was not legal for him to purchase it.

Following the law is NOT doing an end run around it.

 

[tahuyaman]

You live behind a gate and have no regard for the welfare of others.

No on both

 

[tahuyaman]

Because it was not legal for him to purchase it.

Following the law is NOT doing an end run around it.

It is true that Rittenhouse could not legally purchase the rifle.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is true that Rittenhouse could not legally purchase the rifle.

I feel like you have more to say than that one line. Do you have a point with that statement or is it just an affirmation of that fact?

 

[Flash]

Well, then you know more than Rittenhouse, because he testified to the fact that he didn't render first aid to anyone.

But please continue to tell me how I'm the clueless one, you ignorant *****...



If he could own it legally, why didn't he purchase it? Why was it not registered in his name?

That gun purchase was made with the intent to do an end around on the law. Rittenhouse and Black both knew a gun retailer would never have sold the gun to Rittenhouse...

You are confused.

Kyle testified that he did render first aid to two people. It was minor but first aid nevertheless. He offered first aid to anybody that wanted it. We have videos of him asking.

The law in Wisconsin (like here in Florida and a few other states) says that someone his age could not buy an AR. However, he could possesses it. That is why the charge was dropped. It was illegal for Dominic Black to do a straw purchase for Kyle and he will have to answer for that but it was not illegal for Kyle to have the weapon in his possession.

The retailer did not sell the rifle to Kyle. He sold it to Dominic Black so he has no liability. On the form that Black filled out for the background check it asked the question if it was a straw purchase and if it was then Black would not have been able to buy the rifle.

Black was helping out a friend and he got fucked.

My nephew wanted an AR when he was 16. I built one for him and let him shoot it when he was 16 and 17. However, I didn't give him until he was 18. He could have legally possessed it at 17 but it would have been illegal for me to have transfered it to him. He would have been legal and I would have been illegal.

 

[tahuyaman]

I feel like you have more to say than that one line. Do you have a point with that statement or is it just an affirmation of that fact?

It was the verification of a fact. I’ve made many substantive comments in this thread. You can easily review them if you choose

 

[tahuyaman]

The law in Wisconsin (like here in Florida and a few other states) says that someone his age could not buy an AR. However, he could possesses it….

He could under certain conditions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Burning and destroying property is the correct thing to do if the political message needs to be strong enough, such as over a murder by police.
And those who would try to prevent destruction over a valid political protest then would be criminal.

Again, only a criminal would have tried to stop the Boston Tea Party.

God you are crazy rioting and destruction of other peoples property is never justified.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Burning and destroying property is the correct thing to do if the political message needs to be strong enough, such as over a murder by police.
And those who would try to prevent destruction over a valid political protest then would be criminal.

Again, only a criminal would have tried to stop the Boston Tea Party.

And doing so is a declaration of war, so be prepared for the consequences.

 

[tahuyaman]

You are confused.

Kyle testified that he did render first aid to two people. It was minor but first aid nevertheless. He offered first aid to anybody that wanted it. We have videos of him asking.

The law in Wisconsin (like here in Florida and a few other states) says that someone his age could not buy an AR. However, he could possesses it. That is why the charge was dropped. It was illegal for Dominic Black to do a straw purchase for Kyle and he will have to answer for that but it was not illegal for Kyle to have the weapon in his possession.

The retailer did not sell the rifle to Kyle. He sold it to Dominic Black so he has no liability. On the form that Black filled out for the background check it asked the question if it was a straw purchase and if it was then Black would not have been able to buy the rifle.

Black was helping out a friend and he got fucked.

My nephew wanted an AR when he was 16. I built one for him and let him shoot it when he was 16 and 17. However, I didn't give him until he was 18. He could have legally possessed it at 17 but it would have been illegal for me to have transfered it to him. He would have been legal and I would have been illegal.

So, Black lied.

 

[Faun]

You are carrying a rifle in one hand and a medical kit in the other hand.
In what position do you maintain the rifle?

The medical kit wasn't in his other hand. It was attached to a strap that went across his body.