Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Muhammed]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Mr. Rosenbaum was a child molester. Getting shot in the back was too good for him, IMHO.

But it wasn't self defense, and that's going to be profoundly problematic for Rittenhouse's attorney's...

No it won't. They have video evidence that proves it

Have you even seen any of the multiple videos out there?

Kinda telling that everyone here who posts a video of the incident argues that Kyle acted in self-defense while everyone who argues to the contrary merely mindlessly repeats internet and fakestream news rumors.

Watch the first 4 minutes of this video

If a person is shot in the back, he could not be considered a threat. Hey, maybe he was running at Rittenhouse. But if the kid felt truly threatened, the gunshot would've entered the guy from the front, not the back. The fact that it entered into his back demonstrates that he wasn't even facing Rittenhouse at the time.

He could not have been a threat. and you don't get to shoot someone if you think they'll be a threat in the future or they were a threat in the past. A gunshot to the back is always damning evidence against a shooter...

That's an ignorant statement.

That's akin to saying you cannot possibly shoot a wolf in the back in self-defense when it is chewing on your foot.

We live in a 3 dimensional universe. Quit playing stupid.

Are you trained in the use of deadly force?

I am. Well trained, in fact.

Your comparison is the absolute apex of ignorance and stupidity.

How is someone whose back is turned to you a threat? Lemme' help you out: He's not. He can't be...

How did you come to the conclusion that you cannot shoot an animal in the back in self-defense. Please explain your logic.

McGinnis said that Joseph Rosenbaum (who is on video behaving extremely agitated, had literally got out of a mental institution earlier that day, and had a shirt wrapped around his head to conceal his identity) chased Kyle and lunged at Kyle's rifle in an apparent attempt to steal it. And the video evidence is consistent with his eyewitness report.

Kyle shot him and ended the deranged child molester's violent crime spree. He's a hero, whether he realizes it or not.

 

[Canon Shooter]

How did you come to the conclusion that you cannot shoot an animal in the back in self-defense. Please explain your logic.

Simple: I didn't make it. I never uttered the word "animal".

You're the ignorant little simp who's trying to draw some comparison between a person being shot in the back and an animal being shot in the back.

Dude, you're fucking stupid...

 

[Muhammed]

How did you come to the conclusion that you cannot shoot an animal in the back in self-defense. Please explain your logic.

Simple: I didn't make it. I never uttered the word "animal".

You're the ignorant little simp who's trying to draw some comparison between a person being shot in the back and an animal being shot in the back.

Dude, you're fucking stupid...

A person, aka Homo Sapiens, is an animal.


Species‎: ‎H. sapiens
Family‎: ‎Hominidae
Kingdom‎: ‎Animalia
Class‎: ‎Mammalia

 

[SavannahMann]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

 

[Correll]

How did you come to the conclusion that you cannot shoot an animal in the back in self-defense. Please explain your logic.

Simple: I didn't make it. I never uttered the word "animal".

You're the ignorant little simp who's trying to draw some comparison between a person being shot in the back and an animal being shot in the back.

Dude, you're fucking stupid...

His point is valid.


A person could be bent over, biting or stabbing you in the legs, killing you or causing great bodily harm,.

Hell, if the guy grabbed on to your dick, my understanding is that it is possible to cause great bodily harm, by just twisting and pulling.


YOu really just going to let him do that? Cause can't shot in the back?

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

 

[SavannahMann]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

Answer the question.


So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

 

[Muhammed]

as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense.

And and of course you are simply lying again.

 

[SavannahMann]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

Answer the question.


So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

No he did not have a legally valid fear for his life. That legally valid fear was unsupportable legally speaking when he broke the law.

I keep telling you idiots. After the McMichaels in Brunswick were arrested and many times since. Learn what the law actually says. Not what you think it says. Now what you think it should say. But what it actually says.

Your insistence in claiming legal this and that does not make it so. Let’s say a Robber is holding up a Liquor Store. The clerk comes at him swinging a bat. The Robber can’t claim self defense.

Another shooting. The bar owner had let his concealed carry permit lapse. He was carrying anyway. That meant he was carrying illegally. Yes he shot a protestor or rioter if you prefer who was assaulting his Father. But he was legally speaking not allowed to carry the gun. The otherwise justifiable shooting became murder. Because you can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

Kyle had no legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. None. That means he was breaking the law. That means. Legally speaking. He has no legally valid claim of self defense. Just as the McMichaels are facing spending the rest of their lives in prison so will Kyle.

The ends never justify the means. And you can’t skip over the fact that Kyles own actions got him here. It may not have been his intention, but it is the result.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

This is an honest: have any reports by the ME or others shown that the Rosenbaum shooting happened as you describe?

It's known that Rittenhouse shot him in the back and the only time on the video his back is facing Rittenhouse is while he's lying face down, which is visible in the video I posted.

"Known"? In a mob attack, people move, a lot, And there was a lot of shooting going on. Barring clear video and/or clear forensics, I'm not buying your version.

Liar, there was not a lot of shooting during Rittenhouse's first kill. There were 5 shots initially. One by a protester firing a round into the air. The next 4 came from Rittenhouse's gun. By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Possibly. You attack a man and try to take his gun from him, so AT BEST, you and the mob you are a part of, can beat him to within an inch of his life,

a man in that situation might pull the trigger quickly.

Don't like that? Don't attack armed men.

Rosenbaum deserved to be shot.

But if the "armed men" are armed criminals....

You really willing to piss your life away, because you think that some guy might be violating a minor gun control law?

Well, I will defer to your judgement as to the value of your life.


Or really to it's complete lack of value.


My point stands. In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Well you are getting into the realm of feelings. I can get you a binky and some kleenex, or we can go back to talking about the case in front of the court.

So back to the point: the dead guy sure learned not to attack the criminal with the gun. But i don't see.how this affects the case.

Correction: Alleged criminal.

The grand jury declined to indict him but the deputy prosecutor decided to prosecute him anyways, most likely because he was running for office and wanted the publicity.

Right, alleged, but in court they will not be saying "alleged". So i think we are bypassing the niceties.

And perhaps the grand jury was wrong not to indict him.

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

Answer the question.


So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

No he did not have a legally valid fear for his life. That legally valid fear was unsupportable legally speaking when he broke the law.

I keep telling you idiots. After the McMichaels in Brunswick were arrested and many times since. Learn what the law actually says. Not what you think it says. Now what you think it should say. But what it actually says.

Your insistence in claiming legal this and that does not make it so. Let’s say a Robber is holding up a Liquor Store. The clerk comes at him swinging a bat. The Robber can’t claim self defense.

Another shooting. The bar owner had let his concealed carry permit lapse. He was carrying anyway. That meant he was carrying illegally. Yes he shot a protestor or rioter if you prefer who was assaulting his Father. But he was legally speaking not allowed to carry the gun. The otherwise justifiable shooting became murder. Because you can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

Kyle had no legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. None. That means he was breaking the law. That means. Legally speaking. He has no legally valid claim of self defense. Just as the McMichaels are facing spending the rest of their lives in prison so will Kyle.

The ends never justify the means. And you can’t skip over the fact that Kyles own actions got him here. It may not have been his intention, but it is the result.

This is not a court of law. We are allowed to talk about the reality of the situation as opposed to the way the law will or might see it.


Are you arguing that the Law is always right, and we are to ignore any injustice the results from following it?

And odd position to hold, while spouting "the ends never justify the means".


Kyle had plenty of legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. He might not have been in LEGAL possession of a weapon. But wanting to protect property from rioters, is a valid legal reason to possess a weapon.

 

[SavannahMann]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

Answer the question.


So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

No he did not have a legally valid fear for his life. That legally valid fear was unsupportable legally speaking when he broke the law.

I keep telling you idiots. After the McMichaels in Brunswick were arrested and many times since. Learn what the law actually says. Not what you think it says. Now what you think it should say. But what it actually says.

Your insistence in claiming legal this and that does not make it so. Let’s say a Robber is holding up a Liquor Store. The clerk comes at him swinging a bat. The Robber can’t claim self defense.

Another shooting. The bar owner had let his concealed carry permit lapse. He was carrying anyway. That meant he was carrying illegally. Yes he shot a protestor or rioter if you prefer who was assaulting his Father. But he was legally speaking not allowed to carry the gun. The otherwise justifiable shooting became murder. Because you can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

Kyle had no legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. None. That means he was breaking the law. That means. Legally speaking. He has no legally valid claim of self defense. Just as the McMichaels are facing spending the rest of their lives in prison so will Kyle.

The ends never justify the means. And you can’t skip over the fact that Kyles own actions got him here. It may not have been his intention, but it is the result.

This is not a court of law. We are allowed to talk about the reality of the situation as opposed to the way the law will or might see it.


Are you arguing that the Law is always right, and we are to ignore any injustice the results from following it?

And odd position to hold, while spouting "the ends never justify the means".


Kyle had plenty of legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. He might not have been in LEGAL possession of a weapon. But wanting to protect property from rioters, is a valid legal reason to possess a weapon.

The Law and what is Right are rarely the same thing. There is a long list of things that are wrong but legal. The point of this thread was a realistic discussion of Kyle facing the trial. And it is the Conservatives who have constructed the trap that holds Kyle today and will drag him down in the future.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s Judges would give virtual slaps on the wrists to offenders. Then Conservatives pushed for Mandatory Minimums. In cases like Kyles where the offender had good intentions coupled with bad judgement the Court may well give him time served when found guilty. But the Judge is not allowed a wide discretion. Guilty people must go to prison for a long time.

Conservatives also argued that Juries may not learn about Jury Nullification. You actually go to jail for handing out flyers about it to potential jurors.

Jury Nullification is where the person did the act. And violated the letter of the law. Like Kyle. But the Jury believes he had a good reason. The Jury decides that the law is unjust or applied unjustly.

Well we can’t have that. Guilty people might not be found guilty. So laws were passed to prevent “tainting” the Jury pool. The Guilty must be punished. We can’t allow any old bleeding heart to let the guilty go.

In Wisconsin they go even further. They instruct the Juries to ignore Reasonable Doubt and find the truth. The truth they are instructed to find is the defendant is guilty and must be punished.

The truth is that the justice system that the McMichaels and Rittenhouse are facing is intolerant and skewed so heavily against the defendant it is disturbing. The truth is that the Conservatives have pushed for decades to whittle away at the Civil Rights that are supposed to prevent such miscarriages of justice. Common Sense and compassion have been driven out of our courts.

Now. The same way we watch everyone else treated by the courts is insane. Unreasonable. Corrupt. And so forth because it is happening to someone you support.

This is the zero tolerance get tough on crime law and order Judicial System Conservatives have pushed for since the 1970’s. This is the no excuses get the criminals off the street legal system many of us have fought against for years.

Even now. Outraged Conservatives don’t want to fix an obviously broken system. They want an exception for one or two. Not the rest of the criminal scum.

So yes it is right. It is right for Kyle to face the same justice system that has railroaded millions. It is right he face the same abusive system everyone else does.

We frown on special treatment don’t we?

 

[Montrovant]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

Answer the question.


So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

No he did not have a legally valid fear for his life. That legally valid fear was unsupportable legally speaking when he broke the law.

I keep telling you idiots. After the McMichaels in Brunswick were arrested and many times since. Learn what the law actually says. Not what you think it says. Now what you think it should say. But what it actually says.

Your insistence in claiming legal this and that does not make it so. Let’s say a Robber is holding up a Liquor Store. The clerk comes at him swinging a bat. The Robber can’t claim self defense.

Another shooting. The bar owner had let his concealed carry permit lapse. He was carrying anyway. That meant he was carrying illegally. Yes he shot a protestor or rioter if you prefer who was assaulting his Father. But he was legally speaking not allowed to carry the gun. The otherwise justifiable shooting became murder. Because you can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

Kyle had no legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. None. That means he was breaking the law. That means. Legally speaking. He has no legally valid claim of self defense. Just as the McMichaels are facing spending the rest of their lives in prison so will Kyle.

The ends never justify the means. And you can’t skip over the fact that Kyles own actions got him here. It may not have been his intention, but it is the result.

Actually, a person can be engaged in unlawful activity and still claim self defense in Wisconsin. I posted the relevant statute already, but I'll do so again: Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

I'll quote the important passage:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

That is when an unlawful activity is provocation for someone to attack you. It might apply to this case if it is argued that Rittenhouse provoked his attackers.

The statute also mentions someone engaging in illegal activity losing a presumption of believing the force used was necessary to prevent harm, but doesn't actually say that a person engaged in an illegal activity automatically loses the right to claim self defense.

As you can see, I'm looking at what the law actually says. How that statute is normally interpreted, how other statutes may affect it, or what precedents are set that would be used in this case, I can't say.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

It's tipsycatlover, the aggressive racist. What do you think?

I think she really just needs a full body massage with Happy ending to be Happier.

If I used a cigar cutter to snip off your fingers one by one and shoved them up your ass would you tickle your prostate? Would you have a happy ending before you bled to death?

You really do need a full body massage with Happy ending; sugar and spice and everything nice is what women can be. I can always use the practice since I am a guy.

Never show yourself to someone that enjoys inflicting pain on others. You have my imagination running wild. I'm thinking rubber bands on your testicles. Sugar and spice. Like wasabi and peppers in a paste. Spread around????? Put you in manacles and leg irons. You might like it.

Maybe if I should, lose the bet. Otherwise, most girlfriends dump me for being too boring.

Have you offered yourself to the whip? Next time a girl finds you boring get on your knees and say "Mistress, may I lick your toes. Please."

And, here I thought simply asking women if they want to help me practice full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work was not Only exciting, but also therapeutic.

None if that compares to the flow of fresh blood from a willing man. True excitement is - no safe word.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

Answer the question.


So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

No he did not have a legally valid fear for his life. That legally valid fear was unsupportable legally speaking when he broke the law.

I keep telling you idiots. After the McMichaels in Brunswick were arrested and many times since. Learn what the law actually says. Not what you think it says. Now what you think it should say. But what it actually says.

Your insistence in claiming legal this and that does not make it so. Let’s say a Robber is holding up a Liquor Store. The clerk comes at him swinging a bat. The Robber can’t claim self defense.

Another shooting. The bar owner had let his concealed carry permit lapse. He was carrying anyway. That meant he was carrying illegally. Yes he shot a protestor or rioter if you prefer who was assaulting his Father. But he was legally speaking not allowed to carry the gun. The otherwise justifiable shooting became murder. Because you can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

Kyle had no legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. None. That means he was breaking the law. That means. Legally speaking. He has no legally valid claim of self defense. Just as the McMichaels are facing spending the rest of their lives in prison so will Kyle.

The ends never justify the means. And you can’t skip over the fact that Kyles own actions got him here. It may not have been his intention, but it is the result.

This is not a court of law. We are allowed to talk about the reality of the situation as opposed to the way the law will or might see it.


Are you arguing that the Law is always right, and we are to ignore any injustice the results from following it?

And odd position to hold, while spouting "the ends never justify the means".


Kyle had plenty of legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. He might not have been in LEGAL possession of a weapon. But wanting to protect property from rioters, is a valid legal reason to possess a weapon.

The Law and what is Right are rarely the same thing. There is a long list of things that are wrong but legal. The point of this thread was a realistic discussion of Kyle facing the trial. And it is the Conservatives who have constructed the trap that holds Kyle today and will drag him down in the future.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s Judges would give virtual slaps on the wrists to offenders. Then Conservatives pushed for Mandatory Minimums. In cases like Kyles where the offender had good intentions coupled with bad judgement the Court may well give him time served when found guilty. But the Judge is not allowed a wide discretion. Guilty people must go to prison for a long time.

Conservatives also argued that Juries may not learn about Jury Nullification. You actually go to jail for handing out flyers about it to potential jurors.

Jury Nullification is where the person did the act. And violated the letter of the law. Like Kyle. But the Jury believes he had a good reason. The Jury decides that the law is unjust or applied unjustly.

Well we can’t have that. Guilty people might not be found guilty. So laws were passed to prevent “tainting” the Jury pool. The Guilty must be punished. We can’t allow any old bleeding heart to let the guilty go.

In Wisconsin they go even further. They instruct the Juries to ignore Reasonable Doubt and find the truth. The truth they are instructed to find is the defendant is guilty and must be punished.

The truth is that the justice system that the McMichaels and Rittenhouse are facing is intolerant and skewed so heavily against the defendant it is disturbing. The truth is that the Conservatives have pushed for decades to whittle away at the Civil Rights that are supposed to prevent such miscarriages of justice. Common Sense and compassion have been driven out of our courts.

Now. The same way we watch everyone else treated by the courts is insane. Unreasonable. Corrupt. And so forth because it is happening to someone you support.

This is the zero tolerance get tough on crime law and order Judicial System Conservatives have pushed for since the 1970’s. This is the no excuses get the criminals off the street legal system many of us have fought against for years.

Even now. Outraged Conservatives don’t want to fix an obviously broken system. They want an exception for one or two. Not the rest of the criminal scum.

So yes it is right. It is right for Kyle to face the same justice system that has railroaded millions. It is right he face the same abusive system everyone else does.

We frown on special treatment don’t we?

There is no reasonable doubt in this case. It is straight up self defense.

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

Answer the question.


So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

No he did not have a legally valid fear for his life. That legally valid fear was unsupportable legally speaking when he broke the law.

I keep telling you idiots. After the McMichaels in Brunswick were arrested and many times since. Learn what the law actually says. Not what you think it says. Now what you think it should say. But what it actually says.

Your insistence in claiming legal this and that does not make it so. Let’s say a Robber is holding up a Liquor Store. The clerk comes at him swinging a bat. The Robber can’t claim self defense.

Another shooting. The bar owner had let his concealed carry permit lapse. He was carrying anyway. That meant he was carrying illegally. Yes he shot a protestor or rioter if you prefer who was assaulting his Father. But he was legally speaking not allowed to carry the gun. The otherwise justifiable shooting became murder. Because you can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

Kyle had no legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. None. That means he was breaking the law. That means. Legally speaking. He has no legally valid claim of self defense. Just as the McMichaels are facing spending the rest of their lives in prison so will Kyle.

The ends never justify the means. And you can’t skip over the fact that Kyles own actions got him here. It may not have been his intention, but it is the result.

This is not a court of law. We are allowed to talk about the reality of the situation as opposed to the way the law will or might see it.


Are you arguing that the Law is always right, and we are to ignore any injustice the results from following it?

And odd position to hold, while spouting "the ends never justify the means".


Kyle had plenty of legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. He might not have been in LEGAL possession of a weapon. But wanting to protect property from rioters, is a valid legal reason to possess a weapon.

The Law and what is Right are rarely the same thing. There is a long list of things that are wrong but legal. The point of this thread was a realistic discussion of Kyle facing the trial. And it is the Conservatives who have constructed the trap that holds Kyle today and will drag him down in the future.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s Judges would give virtual slaps on the wrists to offenders. Then Conservatives pushed for Mandatory Minimums. In cases like Kyles where the offender had good intentions coupled with bad judgement the Court may well give him time served when found guilty. But the Judge is not allowed a wide discretion. Guilty people must go to prison for a long time.

Conservatives also argued that Juries may not learn about Jury Nullification. You actually go to jail for handing out flyers about it to potential jurors.

Jury Nullification is where the person did the act. And violated the letter of the law. Like Kyle. But the Jury believes he had a good reason. The Jury decides that the law is unjust or applied unjustly.

Well we can’t have that. Guilty people might not be found guilty. So laws were passed to prevent “tainting” the Jury pool. The Guilty must be punished. We can’t allow any old bleeding heart to let the guilty go.

In Wisconsin they go even further. They instruct the Juries to ignore Reasonable Doubt and find the truth. The truth they are instructed to find is the defendant is guilty and must be punished.

The truth is that the justice system that the McMichaels and Rittenhouse are facing is intolerant and skewed so heavily against the defendant it is disturbing. The truth is that the Conservatives have pushed for decades to whittle away at the Civil Rights that are supposed to prevent such miscarriages of justice. Common Sense and compassion have been driven out of our courts.

Now. The same way we watch everyone else treated by the courts is insane. Unreasonable. Corrupt. And so forth because it is happening to someone you support.

This is the zero tolerance get tough on crime law and order Judicial System Conservatives have pushed for since the 1970’s. This is the no excuses get the criminals off the street legal system many of us have fought against for years.

Even now. Outraged Conservatives don’t want to fix an obviously broken system. They want an exception for one or two. Not the rest of the criminal scum.

So yes it is right. It is right for Kyle to face the same justice system that has railroaded millions. It is right he face the same abusive system everyone else does.

We frown on special treatment don’t we?

I saw nothing in the OP, about limiting the discussion to Legalities.

You might be older than me. I was not paying much attention to the wider world in the 70s.


Everything I have read, indicates that the judges or the "reasons" used to give out "Slaps on the wrists" to the guilty, were not very good reasons.


You might have a reasonable point about the connection between the desire to stop that, by "conservatives" and the way the Rittenhouse is being treated.


But if that is the point you want to discuss, let's be clear about some things.


1. Do you agree that Rittenhouse was in real and valid fear for his life when he shot those attackers?

2. Do you think he should go to jail for the majority of his life, because of it?

3. What do you think should be done about the issue of "bleeding heart judges" who give out "wrist slaps" vs the need to not let innocent people get railroaded based on technicalities?

 

[SavannahMann]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

Answer the question.


So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

No he did not have a legally valid fear for his life. That legally valid fear was unsupportable legally speaking when he broke the law.

I keep telling you idiots. After the McMichaels in Brunswick were arrested and many times since. Learn what the law actually says. Not what you think it says. Now what you think it should say. But what it actually says.

Your insistence in claiming legal this and that does not make it so. Let’s say a Robber is holding up a Liquor Store. The clerk comes at him swinging a bat. The Robber can’t claim self defense.

Another shooting. The bar owner had let his concealed carry permit lapse. He was carrying anyway. That meant he was carrying illegally. Yes he shot a protestor or rioter if you prefer who was assaulting his Father. But he was legally speaking not allowed to carry the gun. The otherwise justifiable shooting became murder. Because you can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

Kyle had no legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. None. That means he was breaking the law. That means. Legally speaking. He has no legally valid claim of self defense. Just as the McMichaels are facing spending the rest of their lives in prison so will Kyle.

The ends never justify the means. And you can’t skip over the fact that Kyles own actions got him here. It may not have been his intention, but it is the result.

This is not a court of law. We are allowed to talk about the reality of the situation as opposed to the way the law will or might see it.


Are you arguing that the Law is always right, and we are to ignore any injustice the results from following it?

And odd position to hold, while spouting "the ends never justify the means".


Kyle had plenty of legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. He might not have been in LEGAL possession of a weapon. But wanting to protect property from rioters, is a valid legal reason to possess a weapon.

The Law and what is Right are rarely the same thing. There is a long list of things that are wrong but legal. The point of this thread was a realistic discussion of Kyle facing the trial. And it is the Conservatives who have constructed the trap that holds Kyle today and will drag him down in the future.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s Judges would give virtual slaps on the wrists to offenders. Then Conservatives pushed for Mandatory Minimums. In cases like Kyles where the offender had good intentions coupled with bad judgement the Court may well give him time served when found guilty. But the Judge is not allowed a wide discretion. Guilty people must go to prison for a long time.

Conservatives also argued that Juries may not learn about Jury Nullification. You actually go to jail for handing out flyers about it to potential jurors.

Jury Nullification is where the person did the act. And violated the letter of the law. Like Kyle. But the Jury believes he had a good reason. The Jury decides that the law is unjust or applied unjustly.

Well we can’t have that. Guilty people might not be found guilty. So laws were passed to prevent “tainting” the Jury pool. The Guilty must be punished. We can’t allow any old bleeding heart to let the guilty go.

In Wisconsin they go even further. They instruct the Juries to ignore Reasonable Doubt and find the truth. The truth they are instructed to find is the defendant is guilty and must be punished.

The truth is that the justice system that the McMichaels and Rittenhouse are facing is intolerant and skewed so heavily against the defendant it is disturbing. The truth is that the Conservatives have pushed for decades to whittle away at the Civil Rights that are supposed to prevent such miscarriages of justice. Common Sense and compassion have been driven out of our courts.

Now. The same way we watch everyone else treated by the courts is insane. Unreasonable. Corrupt. And so forth because it is happening to someone you support.

This is the zero tolerance get tough on crime law and order Judicial System Conservatives have pushed for since the 1970’s. This is the no excuses get the criminals off the street legal system many of us have fought against for years.

Even now. Outraged Conservatives don’t want to fix an obviously broken system. They want an exception for one or two. Not the rest of the criminal scum.

So yes it is right. It is right for Kyle to face the same justice system that has railroaded millions. It is right he face the same abusive system everyone else does.

We frown on special treatment don’t we?

I saw nothing in the OP, about limiting the discussion to Legalities.

You might be older than me. I was not paying much attention to the wider world in the 70s.


Everything I have read, indicates that the judges or the "reasons" used to give out "Slaps on the wrists" to the guilty, were not very good reasons.


You might have a reasonable point about the connection between the desire to stop that, by "conservatives" and the way the Rittenhouse is being treated.


But if that is the point you want to discuss, let's be clear about some things.


1. Do you agree that Rittenhouse was in real and valid fear for his life when he shot those attackers?

2. Do you think he should go to jail for the majority of his life, because of it?

3. What do you think should be done about the issue of "bleeding heart judges" who give out "wrist slaps" vs the need to not let innocent people get railroaded based on technicalities?

That is the problem. You can’t tie the Judges hands and then not have the technicalities that you are arguing against now.

And the sob stories you deride. Here the Judges were being consistent. If they reduced a sentence for one isn’t it fair to reduce it for others? Look at the start of Heartbreak Ridge. Highway was in jail facing charges of all sorts of things. And the Judge dismissed the case out of respect for the old Marines long history in serving the nation.

Look how outraged the cops were. That is just a movie. But that is what was really happening in courts around the nation. How dare they let this guy off. How dare they let this person go. So we tied the hands of the Judges.

We got here through decades of outrage that they got away with something. It isn’t even just the legal system. Less than twenty rich people played the game and maximized the deductions and paid essentially no taxes. How outrageous. They followed the rules and won. Well we won’t let that happen again. We came up with the Alternative Minimum Tax. We had to make sure they did not get away with it. Today millions are caught in the trap we laid for a couple dozen people.

We will do whatever it takes to stop them from getting away with it should be our National Motto. We should have it in the seal and our money. Because it is the only motivating factor for most of us.

Even now when you are seeing the light. You can’t imagine letting anyone else get away with the crimes. Just one person. We are all supposed to be equal before the law. Well some of us are more equal. And you want hand picked people to be a few more added to the more equal than the rest of them.

Everyone else? Well let them be screwed by the system that isn’t fair. We can’t let them get away with it.

The truth is that Kyle would be better off if it was the 1970’s. First he would be charged as a juvenile. The case would be sealed by the time he turned 21. And while he couldn’t get a Top Secret Clearance he could have just about every other job on earth.

But we were outraged that this happened. And we made sure it would not happen anymore. So Conservative Hero Kyle Rittenhouse is screwed. He is screwed by the very system that the Conservatives demanded.

We took a system that was biased towards compassion and forgiveness. We insured it was biased towards punishment and severe treatment.

So what can we do for Kyle? If the Governor has the power to pardon, that is about all you can do. Because the reality is that the very system that Conservatives demanded is burying the Conservative heroes.

That is what you can do short term. Appreciate the irony and hope for a pardon. Long term? Start to work on abolishing mandatory minimums. Let the Judges do the job they were hired to do. We picked them. Either through elections or by appointments from people we elected.

As I said before. It isn’t fair. Nothing in life is fair. Even our births are not fair. Some have talents. Some have no talent. Some have physical beauty and others are bereft of that physical advantage. Some are lucky in love. Some are not.

Life is not fair. The only question regarding the courts is which way to nudge the unfairness. Towards compassion and forgiveness or towards harsh and unforgiving. We picked harsh and unforgiving.

I could give you a hundred examples of this. But I’ll give you one. An Air National Guard officer gave his friend an AR to go shoot. He let a friend borrow a rifle. The rifle was malfunctioning. The seat failed to catch and the rifle fired automatically. Full auto.

The Air Guard officer was convicted of illegally transferring a fully automatic rifle in violation of the law. He went to prison. A rifle that broke was enough to send him to prison. He did not modify the rifle. It just got worn. But he broke the law.

That is why I said millions of people are in prison for technicalities and this unfair system. Sometimes publicity saves the target. Not usually. But rarely it does happen. Like a woman in Florida who shot an alligator in her kitchen. She called the cops. The alligator had entered on its own. It had not been lured or captured. The cop issued a summons for hunting alligators out of season without a permit. While writing the summons the gator moved. The cop shot it himself. A feared for his life you see.

The Prosecutor dropped the charges. After it made the news. Otherwise she likely would have done some time in jail.

Hunans are imperfect. Anything we make will be imperfect. So decide which way you want out imperfections to go.

No. I don’t feel outrage that Kyle is going to prison for technicalities. I ran out of outrage for these kinds of cases a long time ago. I ran out of outrage at stupid zero tolerance nonsense. I ran out of outrage about miscarriages of justice so long ago it isn’t even funny anymore.

Now. It is just another example of stupid. Another example of our society putting blinders on and pretending all is well. I don’t even hold out any hope that Judicial Reform will follow. Because Conservatives will have spittle flying as they describe streets being overrun by rapists and murderers if we don’t get tougher and close those loopholes.

Kyle is going to prison. And he is hardly the only one. And he won’t be the last one.

 

[danielpalos]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

It's tipsycatlover, the aggressive racist. What do you think?

I think she really just needs a full body massage with Happy ending to be Happier.

If I used a cigar cutter to snip off your fingers one by one and shoved them up your ass would you tickle your prostate? Would you have a happy ending before you bled to death?

You really do need a full body massage with Happy ending; sugar and spice and everything nice is what women can be. I can always use the practice since I am a guy.

Never show yourself to someone that enjoys inflicting pain on others. You have my imagination running wild. I'm thinking rubber bands on your testicles. Sugar and spice. Like wasabi and peppers in a paste. Spread around????? Put you in manacles and leg irons. You might like it.

Maybe if I should, lose the bet. Otherwise, most girlfriends dump me for being too boring.

Have you offered yourself to the whip? Next time a girl finds you boring get on your knees and say "Mistress, may I lick your toes. Please."

And, here I thought simply asking women if they want to help me practice full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work was not Only exciting, but also therapeutic.

None if that compares to the flow of fresh blood from a willing man. True excitement is - no safe word.

Women bleed every month. No safe word needed.

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

You have never been in a courtroom have you?

Answer the question.


So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?

No he did not have a legally valid fear for his life. That legally valid fear was unsupportable legally speaking when he broke the law.

I keep telling you idiots. After the McMichaels in Brunswick were arrested and many times since. Learn what the law actually says. Not what you think it says. Now what you think it should say. But what it actually says.

Your insistence in claiming legal this and that does not make it so. Let’s say a Robber is holding up a Liquor Store. The clerk comes at him swinging a bat. The Robber can’t claim self defense.

Another shooting. The bar owner had let his concealed carry permit lapse. He was carrying anyway. That meant he was carrying illegally. Yes he shot a protestor or rioter if you prefer who was assaulting his Father. But he was legally speaking not allowed to carry the gun. The otherwise justifiable shooting became murder. Because you can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

Kyle had no legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. None. That means he was breaking the law. That means. Legally speaking. He has no legally valid claim of self defense. Just as the McMichaels are facing spending the rest of their lives in prison so will Kyle.

The ends never justify the means. And you can’t skip over the fact that Kyles own actions got him here. It may not have been his intention, but it is the result.

This is not a court of law. We are allowed to talk about the reality of the situation as opposed to the way the law will or might see it.


Are you arguing that the Law is always right, and we are to ignore any injustice the results from following it?

And odd position to hold, while spouting "the ends never justify the means".


Kyle had plenty of legal reason to be in possession of a weapon. He might not have been in LEGAL possession of a weapon. But wanting to protect property from rioters, is a valid legal reason to possess a weapon.

The Law and what is Right are rarely the same thing. There is a long list of things that are wrong but legal. The point of this thread was a realistic discussion of Kyle facing the trial. And it is the Conservatives who have constructed the trap that holds Kyle today and will drag him down in the future.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s Judges would give virtual slaps on the wrists to offenders. Then Conservatives pushed for Mandatory Minimums. In cases like Kyles where the offender had good intentions coupled with bad judgement the Court may well give him time served when found guilty. But the Judge is not allowed a wide discretion. Guilty people must go to prison for a long time.

Conservatives also argued that Juries may not learn about Jury Nullification. You actually go to jail for handing out flyers about it to potential jurors.

Jury Nullification is where the person did the act. And violated the letter of the law. Like Kyle. But the Jury believes he had a good reason. The Jury decides that the law is unjust or applied unjustly.

Well we can’t have that. Guilty people might not be found guilty. So laws were passed to prevent “tainting” the Jury pool. The Guilty must be punished. We can’t allow any old bleeding heart to let the guilty go.

In Wisconsin they go even further. They instruct the Juries to ignore Reasonable Doubt and find the truth. The truth they are instructed to find is the defendant is guilty and must be punished.

The truth is that the justice system that the McMichaels and Rittenhouse are facing is intolerant and skewed so heavily against the defendant it is disturbing. The truth is that the Conservatives have pushed for decades to whittle away at the Civil Rights that are supposed to prevent such miscarriages of justice. Common Sense and compassion have been driven out of our courts.

Now. The same way we watch everyone else treated by the courts is insane. Unreasonable. Corrupt. And so forth because it is happening to someone you support.

This is the zero tolerance get tough on crime law and order Judicial System Conservatives have pushed for since the 1970’s. This is the no excuses get the criminals off the street legal system many of us have fought against for years.

Even now. Outraged Conservatives don’t want to fix an obviously broken system. They want an exception for one or two. Not the rest of the criminal scum.

So yes it is right. It is right for Kyle to face the same justice system that has railroaded millions. It is right he face the same abusive system everyone else does.

We frown on special treatment don’t we?

I saw nothing in the OP, about limiting the discussion to Legalities.

You might be older than me. I was not paying much attention to the wider world in the 70s.


Everything I have read, indicates that the judges or the "reasons" used to give out "Slaps on the wrists" to the guilty, were not very good reasons.


You might have a reasonable point about the connection between the desire to stop that, by "conservatives" and the way the Rittenhouse is being treated.


But if that is the point you want to discuss, let's be clear about some things.


1. Do you agree that Rittenhouse was in real and valid fear for his life when he shot those attackers?

2. Do you think he should go to jail for the majority of his life, because of it?

3. What do you think should be done about the issue of "bleeding heart judges" who give out "wrist slaps" vs the need to not let innocent people get railroaded based on technicalities?

That is the problem. You can’t tie the Judges hands and then not have the technicalities that you are arguing against now.

And the sob stories you deride. Here the Judges were being consistent. If they reduced a sentence for one isn’t it fair to reduce it for others? Look at the start of Heartbreak Ridge. Highway was in jail facing charges of all sorts of things. And the Judge dismissed the case out of respect for the old Marines long history in serving the nation.

Look how outraged the cops were. That is just a movie. But that is what was really happening in courts around the nation. How dare they let this guy off. How dare they let this person go. So we tied the hands of the Judges.

We got here through decades of outrage that they got away with something. It isn’t even just the legal system. Less than twenty rich people played the game and maximized the deductions and paid essentially no taxes. How outrageous. They followed the rules and won. Well we won’t let that happen again. We came up with the Alternative Minimum Tax. We had to make sure they did not get away with it. Today millions are caught in the trap we laid for a couple dozen people.

We will do whatever it takes to stop them from getting away with it should be our National Motto. We should have it in the seal and our money. Because it is the only motivating factor for most of us.

Even now when you are seeing the light. You can’t imagine letting anyone else get away with the crimes. Just one person. We are all supposed to be equal before the law. Well some of us are more equal. And you want hand picked people to be a few more added to the more equal than the rest of them.

Everyone else? Well let them be screwed by the system that isn’t fair. We can’t let them get away with it.

The truth is that Kyle would be better off if it was the 1970’s. First he would be charged as a juvenile. The case would be sealed by the time he turned 21. And while he couldn’t get a Top Secret Clearance he could have just about every other job on earth.

But we were outraged that this happened. And we made sure it would not happen anymore. So Conservative Hero Kyle Rittenhouse is screwed. He is screwed by the very system that the Conservatives demanded.

We took a system that was biased towards compassion and forgiveness. We insured it was biased towards punishment and severe treatment.

So what can we do for Kyle? If the Governor has the power to pardon, that is about all you can do. Because the reality is that the very system that Conservatives demanded is burying the Conservative heroes.

That is what you can do short term. Appreciate the irony and hope for a pardon. Long term? Start to work on abolishing mandatory minimums. Let the Judges do the job they were hired to do. We picked them. Either through elections or by appointments from people we elected.

As I said before. It isn’t fair. Nothing in life is fair. Even our births are not fair. Some have talents. Some have no talent. Some have physical beauty and others are bereft of that physical advantage. Some are lucky in love. Some are not.

Life is not fair. The only question regarding the courts is which way to nudge the unfairness. Towards compassion and forgiveness or towards harsh and unforgiving. We picked harsh and unforgiving.

I could give you a hundred examples of this. But I’ll give you one. An Air National Guard officer gave his friend an AR to go shoot. He let a friend borrow a rifle. The rifle was malfunctioning. The seat failed to catch and the rifle fired automatically. Full auto.

The Air Guard officer was convicted of illegally transferring a fully automatic rifle in violation of the law. He went to prison. A rifle that broke was enough to send him to prison. He did not modify the rifle. It just got worn. But he broke the law.

That is why I said millions of people are in prison for technicalities and this unfair system. Sometimes publicity saves the target. Not usually. But rarely it does happen. Like a woman in Florida who shot an alligator in her kitchen. She called the cops. The alligator had entered on its own. It had not been lured or captured. The cop issued a summons for hunting alligators out of season without a permit. While writing the summons the gator moved. The cop shot it himself. A feared for his life you see.

The Prosecutor dropped the charges. After it made the news. Otherwise she likely would have done some time in jail.

Hunans are imperfect. Anything we make will be imperfect. So decide which way you want out imperfections to go.

No. I don’t feel outrage that Kyle is going to prison for technicalities. I ran out of outrage for these kinds of cases a long time ago. I ran out of outrage at stupid zero tolerance nonsense. I ran out of outrage about miscarriages of justice so long ago it isn’t even funny anymore.

Now. It is just another example of stupid. Another example of our society putting blinders on and pretending all is well. I don’t even hold out any hope that Judicial Reform will follow. Because Conservatives will have spittle flying as they describe streets being overrun by rapists and murderers if we don’t get tougher and close those loopholes.

Kyle is going to prison. And he is hardly the only one. And he won’t be the last one.

1. YOur assumption that only "conservatives" have been unhappy about criminals getting off after committing serious crimes, is not what I have seen.

2. As a society we should be able to distinguish between a poacher who is hunting out of season and a woman protecting her house. That we cannot, is a sign of something deeply wrong with us.

3. Kyle should NOT go to jail. I understand your unhappiness with our justice system. But, he was actually defending himself from an attack, and if the Law cannot tell that, because of a technicality, that is a major problem with either the Justice system or the law, if not both.