Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Faun]

Juries get it wrong sometimes.

Look at Chauvin.

Good example on showing where a jury got it right.

 

[initforme]

It's best a jury sorts this out.

 

[Faun]

I must have missed it; what post was that?

No, you read it.

 

[freyasman]

No, you read it.

Post #?

 

[Faun]

Post #?

The one you already replied to. You really think it's my job to keep track of what you read?

 

[freyasman]

The one you already replied to. You really think it's my job to keep track of what you read?

I think you're full of shit.

 

[freyasman]

Faun What part did Branca get wrong?

No he didn't address the wound in Rosenbaum's back because that sort of shit is actually pretty common in shootings, and it's not the "gotcha" you seem to think it is.

The question is; what was Branca wrong about?
If anything?

 

[Correll]

I don't know all the evidence so I will withhold judgement. I do for sure see without a doubt a young scared little boy who thought he was going to go into a bad spot because he thought he was tough because he was carrying a firearm. That's obviously why he was there. It takes more than a firearm to enter a spot like that and he obviously wasn't trained for it. The jury will have to consider how afraid he was in the heat of the moment and that fear and intense fright took over. I'd hate to sort all this out. Placing oneself in a bad situation untrained without good thinking ability never turns out well I feel bad for all involved.

It is clear from the video that he was prepared for it and he responded perfectly.

He was put into a bad situation by the police that refused to let him rejoin his group. That was, at best, rank incompetence on their part.

 

[Correll]

Yes, a reporter. So why can't he be trusted?

Because he is not really a reporter. Even "real" reporters are more often political activists now days, specifically lefty anti-American political activists.

SOrry, you have the word of a "reporter" that clashes with video evidence, and the "reporters" words are worth NOTHING.

 

[Faun]

I think you're full of shit.

 

[Faun]

Faun What part did Branca get wrong?

No he didn't address the wound in Rosenbaum's back because that sort of shit is actually pretty common in shootings, and it's not the "gotcha" you seem to think it is.

The question is; what was Branca wrong about?
If anything?

I already answered that. And stop pretending like you didn't see my answer because you replied to my answer.

 

[Faun]

Because he is not really a reporter. Even "real" reporters are more often political activists now days, specifically lefty anti-American political activists.

SOrry, you have the word of a "reporter" that clashes with video evidence, and the "reporters" words are worth NOTHING.

Great, let's see your proof Rosenbaum reached for the gun...

 

[SavannahMann]

Rittenhouse 1 – Law of Self Defense

I've posted this before and you always ignore it or just dismiss it.

Don't do that.

Go through it, line by line and tell me what part this attorney specializing in self defense cases is wrong about, and why he is wrong.





And if you can't do that or won't, then just shut the hell up, for fucks sake.

I skimmed it. It was the usual. The problem is that you can’t claim self defense, or at least the claim is weak, if you are committing a crime, or looking for trouble. Kyle falls into both categories.

First, he was in an area where the people had been ordered to disperse. He didn’t. Second, he was carrying a weapon in violation of the law. Third, he was looking for trouble.

Let’s say I dress in all blue. Blue shirt, blue bandana, blue pants. Blue shoes. I get a gun and a vest and I head down into an area known to be the residence of a neighborhood gang. They all wear red. They see me wearing blue, and start to attack me. I shoot several of them claiming self defense. The claim would be ignored by the courts, I went there knowing that I was probably going to cause trouble, and looking for an excuse to shoot several people.

It would be as if I laid a trail of expensive electronics and cash to my back door. When someone followed the trail I could scream I was a feared for my life and shoot them. Only I enticed them in, I was looking for trouble.

So Kyle went looking for trouble, or at least believed it was probable. So probable he needed a gun. A gun he was prohibited by law from owning. So this law abiding good Patriotic American has already weakened his own self defense argument.

He moved into the area, following others, who were talking about teaching the protestors a lesson. Now, you can argue that Kyle didn’t agree, but why did he remain if he didn’t agree?

Imagine you’re going to meet some friends. You arrive and find that several people there are wearing the sheets of the KKK, and are setting up a cross to be burned. Now, you can argue you disagree with the KKK, but if you remain, how much weight is that argument going to carry? Not much.

The Narrative that the link you provided is trying to establish is that Kyle was a guy minding his own business, in an area he was completely justified to be in, doing nothing illegal, when he was forced by circumstance to kill three people in self defense.

That is not what happened.

Kyle crossed a State Line to go there. It wasn’t in his town, it wasn’t on his street. He didn’t rush there to help a family member who’s house or business was threatened. He didn’t know the owners of the property, and had no request from them, nor any permission to be there. The Police told the people to leave the area. You can argue the Protestors didn’t obey either, but because everyone is doing 70 in a 55 MPH zone doesn’t mean it’s legal for me to do so. The speed limit is 55 and if I get a ticket, the Judge is not going to say well you were doing what everyone else was.

Kyle was breaking the law, and his attorney is going to have a hell of a tough sell convincing the jury that Kyle wasn’t there looking for trouble. If the jury believes that Kyle was there looking for trouble, they’re going to convict him for the killings. Just as we convict someone who kills in a gang shootout in the cities.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Juries get it wrong sometimes.

So do armchair attorneys with heavy political bias. Probably more often.

 

[freyasman]

I already answered that. And stop pretending like you didn't see my answer because you replied to my answer.

A response is not an answer, it's just a response.

 

[freyasman]

I skimmed it. It was the usual. The problem is that you can’t claim self defense, or at least the claim is weak, if you are committing a crime, or looking for trouble. Kyle falls into both categories.

First, he was in an area where the people had been ordered to disperse. He didn’t. Second, he was carrying a weapon in violation of the law. Third, he was looking for trouble.

Let’s say I dress in all blue. Blue shirt, blue bandana, blue pants. Blue shoes. I get a gun and a vest and I head down into an area known to be the residence of a neighborhood gang. They all wear red. They see me wearing blue, and start to attack me. I shoot several of them claiming self defense. The claim would be ignored by the courts, I went there knowing that I was probably going to cause trouble, and looking for an excuse to shoot several people.

It would be as if I laid a trail of expensive electronics and cash to my back door. When someone followed the trail I could scream I was a feared for my life and shoot them. Only I enticed them in, I was looking for trouble.

So Kyle went looking for trouble, or at least believed it was probable. So probable he needed a gun. A gun he was prohibited by law from owning. So this law abiding good Patriotic American has already weakened his own self defense argument.

He moved into the area, following others, who were talking about teaching the protestors a lesson. Now, you can argue that Kyle didn’t agree, but why did he remain if he didn’t agree?

Imagine you’re going to meet some friends. You arrive and find that several people there are wearing the sheets of the KKK, and are setting up a cross to be burned. Now, you can argue you disagree with the KKK, but if you remain, how much weight is that argument going to carry? Not much.

The Narrative that the link you provided is trying to establish is that Kyle was a guy minding his own business, in an area he was completely justified to be in, doing nothing illegal, when he was forced by circumstance to kill three people in self defense.

That is not what happened.

Kyle crossed a State Line to go there. It wasn’t in his town, it wasn’t on his street. He didn’t rush there to help a family member who’s house or business was threatened. He didn’t know the owners of the property, and had no request from them, nor any permission to be there. The Police told the people to leave the area. You can argue the Protestors didn’t obey either, but because everyone is doing 70 in a 55 MPH zone doesn’t mean it’s legal for me to do so. The speed limit is 55 and if I get a ticket, the Judge is not going to say well you were doing what everyone else was.

Kyle was breaking the law, and his attorney is going to have a hell of a tough sell convincing the jury that Kyle wasn’t there looking for trouble. If the jury believes that Kyle was there looking for trouble, they’re going to convict him for the killings. Just as we convict someone who kills in a gang shootout in the cities.

That's going to depend entirely upon the make up of the jury.

 

[freyasman]

So do armchair attorneys with heavy political bias. Probably more often.

True, but I don't think I am in this case.

And I'm pretty sure you are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True, but I don't think I am in this case.

And I'm pretty sure you are.

Well sure, that's what heavy bias is. I am sure your mind was made up upon reading the first headline.

 

[initforme]

A mere lower ability thinking kid doesn't belong in a riot. Why would any parent let their kid go there? This doesn't to me play into the trial but that is the last place I'd let my kid go.

 

[Faun]

A response is not an answer, it's just a response.

The response was yours. The answer was mine.