Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse trial


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ha ha ha, Americanos and their gun nutz, your gun culture is fucked. 

The fact that a young punk can present himself at a riot, parade around with an illegal assault rifle, shoots three people - (surprise surprise) and can reasonably be expect to be acquitted on grounds

I have to say that I regard anyone with a gun on their hip or slung over their shoulder walking around in public as being a threat to my life. I now include police in this generalization; I used to gi

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Gotta be one or two closet supremacists on the panel. Has to be ... the region is full of them. 

I’d go with the opposite. Couple of liberal hold outs, wanting to punish him for being there with a scary gun.  Probably the two woman who wore masks the whole time. :) 

Based on the law and evidence it was a solid case for self defense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, quod umbra said:

Which is about as sad as it gets. That an angry mob can sway a jury emotionally to vote against their conscience.

It’s happening.  They are on the steps of the court house so loud it can be heard throughout the building.   They leave and arrive while the mob is still there.   Hell they have to know that the police pulled over a car from MSNBC that was following their bus, trying to film them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

I’d go with the opposite. Couple of liberal hold outs, wanting to punish him for being there with a scary gun.  Probably the two woman who wore masks the whole time. :) 

Based on the law and evidence it was a solid case for self defense.  

Yep, that too. 

I read here or somewhere that Kyle was chasing one of them til the guy stopped and began chasing Kyle. From 100% offense to 100% self-defense? 

Doesn't wash.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

Yep, that too. 

I read here or somewhere that Kyle was chasing one of them til the guy stopped and began chasing Kyle. From 100% offense to 100% self-defense? 

Doesn't wash.

If that were true, and Kyle ran away, then he still gets self defense.

But it isn't true.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.chron.com/news/article/In-Charlottesville-trial-jurors-learn-to-decode-16632986.php

"CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. - The jury in a federal courtroom listened as a longtime researcher of far-right movements parsed the style guide of the infamous neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer."

""The tone of the site should be light. Most people are not comfortable with material that comes across as vitriolic, raging, nonironic hatred. The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not," according to a guide section titled "Lulz" - which stands for laugh out loud. Continuing with a derogatory term for Jews, it read, "This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas k---s. But that's neither here nor there.""

"This evidence, introduced in an ongoing civil trial against organizers of the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, appeared to highlight a sinister strategy expert witness Pete Simi was trying to teach the jurors: the ways in which white supremacists employ humor to shield their calls for violence, in an effort to render them legally ambiguous."

"As jurors consider the plaintiffs' accusation that the rally organizers conspired to foment racial violence, they have been presented with a trove of evidence that includes messages laced with slurs, memes of using cars to run over protesters and calls for cracking skulls. Over the past four weeks, plaintiffs' attorneys have tried to make their case by carefully breaking down the jokes and catchphrases favored by far-right extremists, in an effort to teach jurors how to decode white supremacists' secret vocabulary of hate."

"Whether the jury takes this evidence literally or views it as exaggeration is the crux of many arguments in this trial."

"The plaintiffs' attorneys have called in experts to help the jury understand what is sinister about the numbers 1488 - which refer to "14 words," a popular white supremacist slogan, and "Heil Hitler," because "H" is the eighth letter of the alphabet. They have translated the phrase "RaHoWa," which may sound like gibberish to outsiders but among hate groups stands for "racial holy war." And they explained how a question that seems innocuous - "Did you see Kyle? - is actually a play on words for the Nazi salute "Sieg Heil.""

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Major mistake to not sequester this jury.  They are hearing the threats from the mob that they will burn the town down if he is acquitted small town there has to be some concern by the jury. 

It’s equally stupid that they didn’t move the trial out of Kenosha. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jzk said:

How would that affect the jury decision?

Is this just some kind of paranoia that you harbor?

Have a sense of humor. People will start thinking you’re a democrat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

If that were true, and Kyle ran away, then he still gets self defense.

But it isn't true.

But the law should be changed cause that's fucked up. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Major mistake to not sequester this jury.  They are hearing the threats from the mob that they will burn the town down if he is acquitted small town there has to be some concern by the jury. 

I doubt it. Wouldn't enter my mind at all. Assuming they are locals, which they are by definition, they already know what's going on in their town. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Which is about as sad as it gets. That an angry mob can sway a jury emotionally to vote against their conscience.

Do you know of any? Folks say that, but I don't think there's an example of it ever happening. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I'd bet many a jury in the South has been intimidated in just that way by their neighbors.

Possibly, but the only answer would be to move venue. Can't see how sequestering somewhere would matter much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Yep.  But I’m sure there would have been objections on a change of venue motion from the prosecution.   

Doubtful. This prosecutor clearly didn't want this trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, The Joker said:

 They are hearing the threats from the mob

Well, at least 75% of threats of violence come from while male conservatives . .

You seem to be entirely OK with them. 

And you are lying about Kenosha. 

Here is a more balanced look at the scene outside the courthouse 

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/outside-kenosha-courthouse-vocal-groups-await-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/article_c98bdaeb-3d11-510c-bff8-b36a8d87eb37.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chum said:

Really?! Nooooo shit...Lol thanks for the sciency boolit ballistics explanation. I own both platforms and have fired countless rounds from both lol.

You mean you own gunz and had weapons training, but don't know that muzzle velocity affects the distance that rounds travel ?? 

You are a threat to yourself and others. 

A sane society would disarm you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

It’s happening.

What's "happening"? 

You mean armed intimidation by the R-e-e-i-i-c-h  ??? 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/11/19/2065175/-Ammosexual-Carrying-AR-15-Outside-Kenosha-County-Courthouse-ID-d-As-Former-Ferguson-Police-Officer

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chum said:

Biomed engineers troubleshoot repair and maintain hospital equipment, nothing to do with vaccines. My career in aviation maintenance gave me a huge leg up over the narrow focus of the military trained guys.

I am not an anti-vaxxer

 

Glad to hear it, but what was that bunch of posts a couple days back?

IMHO military training is the best, but it's also focused on skills/mindsets the military finds useful. The ex-military guys I worked with had the best motivation and the best big-picture view of anybody including the PhD level engineers (many of whom were brilliant).

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

But the law should be changed cause that's fucked up. 

I think you haven't looked into it enough.

What if you just want to beat someone up because you are an asshole.  So you chase after them.  They turn around and pull a knife on you and start coming at you.  You run away.  You get cornered.  Do you have to just submit to the knife guy and be killed?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Which 2 walked "down the middle of the street, holding a loaded long gun"?

I'm curious.... what's the difference between walking down the street with a loaded LONG gun vs doing the same with a loaded pistol?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mark K said:

Was there someone threatening him at the scene of the first shooting? 

It looked to me like he was being chased by the first shitbag.  That seems pretty threatening.  Did you see something different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, corkob said:

The fact that a young punk can present himself at a riot, parade around with an illegal assault rifle, shoots three people - (surprise surprise) and can reasonably be expect to be acquitted on grounds of self defense, is a bizarre concept in every civilized jurisdiction except the US. Ye are really, really fucked up over there.

This sums it up best....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jzk said:

I think you haven't looked into it enough.

What if you just want to beat someone up because you are an asshole.  So you chase after them.  They turn around and pull a knife on you and start coming at you.  You run away.  You get cornered.  Do you have to just submit to the knife guy and be killed?

If you kill them? Yeah, you should have some level of responsibility, absolutely.  Maybe manslaughter. Cause if you hadn't attacked, they wouldn't be dead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 00seven said:

burning man already addressed that. Given the environment 9mm hadgun & .223 rifle would travel the same distance before something stopped it.

Anyody have the barrel length of the AR? Was it a pistol or a log gun?

You folks are more interested in "gotchas" than what actuallytranspired.

(I've left grammatical errors so you have something to snipe aout)

It was a standard 16" carbine length AR.  It had a stock, so therefore could not be a pistol.  Anything under 16 inches would be considered a short barreled rifle and that would MOST DEFINITELY be illegal unless he went through the Tax stamp BATFE process, which at 17 he could not do.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

If you kill them? Yeah, you should have some level of responsibility, absolutely.  Maybe manslaughter. Cause if you hadn't attacked, they wouldn't be dead. 

Let me put this a different way.  

If someone attacks you and then at some point runs away, you don't get a free chance to kill them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Let me put this a different way.  

If someone attacks you and then at some point runs away, you don't get a free chance to kill them.

Imagine that's what I suggest. Did I say knife guy has a right to kill you? No. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

It sums up getting the facts wrong?  What was illegal about the rifle?

Ill explain it for you.

The entire rest of thew world, (that's the part of the world, outside of the USA, that most Americanos never visit),

They all watch what continues to happen with the exceptional firearm violence and firearm killings inside your country, and are just simply amazed that it continues on into this present day and age.

"Ye are really, really fucked up over there."

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Imagine that's what I suggest. Did I say knife guy has a right to kill you? No. 

So you don't have a right to stop him?  You just have to either submit to death or commit a crime?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Keith said:

Ill explain it for you.

The entire rest of thew world, (that's the part of the world, outside of the USA, that most Americanos never visit),

They all watch what continues to happen with the exceptional firearm violence and firearm killings inside your country, and are just simply amazed that it continues on into this present day and age.

"Ye are really, really fucked up over there."

 

 

 

How do they feel about looters and rioters openly stealing and destroying while the authorities tell the police to back off?
All over a false narrative put out by the lefty media? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Keith said:

Ill explain it for you.

The entire rest of thew world, (that's the part of the world, outside of the USA, that most Americanos never visit),

They all watch what continues to happen with the exceptional firearm violence and firearm killings inside your country, and are just simply amazed that it continues on into this present day and age.

"Ye are really, really fucked up over there."

 

 

 

Yet it is still legal to carry that firearm.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Major mistake to not sequester this jury.  They are hearing the threats from the mob that they will burn the town down if he is acquitted small town there has to be some concern by the jury. 

Now we're getting somewhere.  So the "mob" is people hoping for a conviction?  And you're obviously hoping for an acquittal so you are on the other side.  So who are the other people with you?  And who are the other people you are against?  Is there a physical distinction between you two, certain clothing, flags, chants?  And what parts of the town will be burned down?  $1 Stores or Restoration Hardware types?  If he's convicted will you and your team burn down something or have Avocado toast in protest or Coal Roll Teslas? And which team will have the benefit of the National Guard standing down for them, the acquitters or the convictanistas?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Now we're getting somewhere.  So the "mob" is people hoping for a conviction?  And you're obviously hoping for an acquittal so you are on the other side.  So who are the other people with you?  And who are the other people you are against?  Is there a physical distinction between you two, certain clothing, flags, chants?  And what parts of the town will be burned down?  $1 Stores or Restoration Hardware types?  If he's convicted will you and your team burn down something or have Avocado toast in protest or Coal Roll Teslas? And which team will have the benefit of the National Guard standing down for them, the acquitters or the convictanistas?

You are a strange person. Are the voices in your head taking over?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jzk said:

So you don't have a right to stop him?  You just have to either submit to death or commit a crime?

You committed a crime in attacking. So, yeah, actions have consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Apparently this guy used to be a lawyer when he was alive.

 

In a way, the Judge has already threatened that's what he'll do. If he's not aquitted, he may declare a mistrial. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Not much for honor do I find. You asked for the actual details, and you got them, straight up. Now your rotten, bent soul is making shit up, repeatedly, in a sick rotation. The Jeffie fluff is live-streaming out your chubby ass.

 

Sorry Joe, but that is pretty much exactly what you described.  Meth head comes into yard and won't leave.  After having words and him still not leaving, you go and get your rifle.  The presence of the rifle doesn't seem to deter him, so you shoot a warning shot into a stump "near" said meth head.  Said meth head finally gets the message and leaves.  Joe is then later wracked with debilitating guilt over the incident and decides to cut up his dogballz rifle into pieces (which I respect btw).

I guess one other good thing that came out of that incident is that you got to see that outdoor militias are a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Sorry Joe, but that is pretty much exactly what you described.  Meth head comes into yard and won't leave.  After having words and him still not leaving, you go and get your rifle.  The presence of the rifle doesn't seem to deter him, so you shoot a warning shot into a stump "near" said meth head.  Said meth head finally gets the message and leaves.  Joe is then later wracked with debilitating guilt over the incident and decides to cut up his dogballz rifle into pieces (which I respect btw).

I guess one other good thing that came out of that incident is that you got to see that outdoor militias are a thing.

This post solidifies for me that the only hero in the situation was the guy who went after a guy with an assault weapon, who just shot another guy in the face, only armed with a skateboard.  That took United 93 balls.  RIP.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

His age.

There's an exception to the law that allows 16/17 year-olds to carry a long gun.....surprised you haven't read about that already......

 

From the article:

Cicchini, who is not involved in the case, said legal doctrine demands that when statutes aren't clear they must be read in favor of the defense.

"This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article discussing the doctrine.

Prosecutors can ask a state appeals court for clarifications and rulings in the middle of a case; they don't have to wait until a verdict comes down. But usually prosecutors don't make such a move unless a judge hands down an adverse decision, Cicchini said. In Rittenhouse's case, Schroeder didn't rule against Kraus until minutes before closing arguments began.

Turner, the former federal prosecutor, said prosecutors should have realized the issue wasn't settled and headed Schroeder off by asking an appellate court for a ruling or filing more briefs.

“I'm hesitant to jump to the conclusion that the judge is doing something unfair to (prosecutors),” Turner said. “When the judge expressed skepticism early, they should have done something to make sure it's clear. In a case of this magnitude, if I'm the prosecutor and the judge has expressed some skepticism or doubt about this, I'm going to do everything I can to sustain that count. When you heard early on there was some doubt, you've got to get on this.”

 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81186071

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gouvernail said:

The Republican position has become quite clear.

if you don’t like something that is going on, grab your gun and go to the event. 

And the dem position is just as clear if you don’t like something grab your torch and UHaul.  

D0142572-48CA-4F9C-AEA0-8851BE3ECF26.jpeg

BAF0E32F-3D85-4401-A48E-9AB2DDDDC537.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patriot said:

There's an exception to the law that allows 16/17 year-olds to carry a long gun.....surprised you haven't read about that already......

 

From the article:

Cicchini, who is not involved in the case, said legal doctrine demands that when statutes aren't clear they must be read in favor of the defense.

"This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article discussing the doctrine.

Prosecutors can ask a state appeals court for clarifications and rulings in the middle of a case; they don't have to wait until a verdict comes down. But usually prosecutors don't make such a move unless a judge hands down an adverse decision, Cicchini said. In Rittenhouse's case, Schroeder didn't rule against Kraus until minutes before closing arguments began.

Turner, the former federal prosecutor, said prosecutors should have realized the issue wasn't settled and headed Schroeder off by asking an appellate court for a ruling or filing more briefs.

“I'm hesitant to jump to the conclusion that the judge is doing something unfair to (prosecutors),” Turner said. “When the judge expressed skepticism early, they should have done something to make sure it's clear. In a case of this magnitude, if I'm the prosecutor and the judge has expressed some skepticism or doubt about this, I'm going to do everything I can to sustain that count. When you heard early on there was some doubt, you've got to get on this.”

 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81186071

Joined 2004 with 1000 posts.  What is it about people with dormant socks?  Why the need for more than one ID? Do you say different things depending on the sock you use?

Its troubling.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Keith said:

Ill explain it for you.

The entire rest of thew world, (that's the part of the world, outside of the USA, that most Americanos never visit),

They all watch what continues to happen with the exceptional firearm violence and firearm killings inside your country, and are just simply amazed that it continues on into this present day and age.

"Ye are really, really fucked up over there."

 

 

 

Bullshit.  I have had the opportunity to go to other parts of the world and guess what - people in other parts of the world really don't give a phuck about the everyday happenings in the USA with the exception of the pop-culture shit.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Joined 2004 with 1000 posts.  What is it about people with dormant socks?  Why the need for more than one ID? Do you say different things depending on the sock you use?

Its troubling.

Not a sock Bull Gator - I just don’t post here often any more - is that okay with you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

I think you haven't looked into it enough.

What if you just want to beat someone up because you are an asshole.  So you chase after them.  They turn around and pull a knife on you and start coming at you.  You run away.  You get cornered.  Do you have to just submit to the knife guy and be killed?

The law should not protect instigators.  

Why we feel the need to have laws that protect violent instigators is completely beyond me.

If you are an asshole, and you do some asshole shit, the law should not protect you.  

We should not live in a society where the assholes are able to hide behind laws with impunity.

Of course those laws were written by assholes, so assholes can keep being assholes, simply to maintain their idea of the status quo

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sail611 said:

The law should not protect instigators.  

Why we feel the need to have laws that protect violent instigators is completely beyond me.

If you are an asshole, and you do some asshole shit, the law should not protect you.  

We should not live in a society where the assholes are able to hide behind laws with impunity.

Of course those laws were written by assholes, so assholes can keep being assholes, simply to maintain their idea of the status quo

I think the laws are basically a vestige of racism. Maybe the Georgia 3, testing that theory, will find that we can no longer stomach those laws. I'm hopeful, but doubtful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sail611 said:

The law should not protect instigators.  

Why we feel the need to have laws that protect violent instigators is completely beyond me.

If you are an asshole, and you do some asshole shit, the law should not protect you.  

We should not live in a society where the assholes are able to hide behind laws with impunity.

Of course those laws were written by assholes, so assholes can keep being assholes, simply to maintain their idea of the status quo

exhibit 1:

Another bad day for Trump at the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Are you dumb and ignorant, or just blind and ignorant?

None of the above?   So again why should there be trouble?   He was judged by a jury of his peers and a verdict was found.  Surely you aren’t saying people will not accept this verdict.    I expect the national guard will be prepared to deal with any people who break the law because they don’t like our system. 

Link to post