Anyone else watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?

printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Applesauceisgood said:
The victim is Mr. Rittenhouse. He was violently attacked and his right to self-defense was reaffirmed under law. A just outcome.
Click to expand...
Rittenhouse verdict: What counted as self-defense with open carry firearms?
On the day Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum and Huber, there were many militia-like civilians with firearms roaming the streets of Kenosha, claiming their intent was keeping order. Grosskreutz himself stated, “I believe in the Second Amendment. I am for people’s right to carry and bear arms. And that night was no different than any other day. It’s keys, phone, wallet, gun.”

But a plastic bag and skateboard are no match for an AR-15. Wisconsin’s criminal laws don’t seem to adequately calibrate the right to carry concealed or open firearms and the right to self-defense. Two people paid the ultimate price for this disparity, and now it was a jury of Rittenhouse’s peers — rather than a legislature — that made the call for the rest of us.
thehill.com

Rittenhouse verdict: What counted as self-defense with open carry firearms?

The case boils down to two concepts under Wisconsin law: self-defense and provocation.
thehill.com thehill.com
 
A

Applesauceisgood

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yes, yes, the jurors followed the judge's instructions as they were sworn to do.

It doesn't change the facts about his guilty behavior that night. I mean, fleeing the scene, crossing state borders and getting arrested as a fugitive from justice the following day. These are not the acts of an innocent man.
Click to expand...
A good thing guilty behavior doesn't equate to guilt. Many people act guilty when they are innocent. I prefer we stick to objectivity when people's lives hang in the balance. There was a time when being black could be interpreted as guilty behavior.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Applesauceisgood said:
A ridiculous argument. Thankfully, we live in a free country. Free to travel and be anywhere you want unless violating established law. "What if that rape victim didn't wear a low cut shirt". You're victim shaming.
Click to expand...
that woukld assume that kenosha killer kyle was innocent...we both know he murdered those p[eople, and the only reason you're happy about it is it gets you one step closer to this
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/10/27/charlie-kirk-denounces-violence-mh-orig.cnn
well bring it on motherfuckers..you're gonna learn some shit about "snowflake libs" and it ain't gonna be a pain free lesson
 
A

Applesauceisgood

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Rittenhouse verdict: What counted as self-defense with open carry firearms?
On the day Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum and Huber, there were many militia-like civilians with firearms roaming the streets of Kenosha, claiming their intent was keeping order. Grosskreutz himself stated, “I believe in the Second Amendment. I am for people’s right to carry and bear arms. And that night was no different than any other day. It’s keys, phone, wallet, gun.”

But a plastic bag and skateboard are no match for an AR-15. Wisconsin’s criminal laws don’t seem to adequately calibrate the right to carry concealed or open firearms and the right to self-defense. Two people paid the ultimate price for this disparity, and now it was a jury of Rittenhouse’s peers — rather than a legislature — that made the call for the rest of us.
thehill.com

Rittenhouse verdict: What counted as self-defense with open carry firearms?

The case boils down to two concepts under Wisconsin law: self-defense and provocation.
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
Annually, more people are murdered with hands and feet than long rifles. Outside of that observation, I am not sure what you're getting at in regards to my comment and how it relates to that opinion piece.
 
Rurumo

Rurumo

Well-Known Member
Damn, if he were black, he wouldn't have even had the chance to murder those guys, the cops that drove by Rittenhouse and waved to him would have shot him on the spot. I guarantee someone will use this as a precedent soon. This is basically a license to kill.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Applesauceisgood said:
A good thing guilty behavior doesn't equate to guilt. Many people act guilty when they are innocent. I prefer we stick to objectivity when people's lives hang in the balance. There was a time when being black could be interpreted as guilty behavior.
Click to expand...
I'm all for objectivity. I listed objective facts about Rittenhouse's actions the night he killed three people in my explanation of why I doubt he is innocent. You are making shit up and hiding behind the jury's verdict. Yes, the jury followed the judge's instructions and found Rittenhouse not guilty. So he will walk and not face justice. I hope he corrects his life.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rurumo said:
Damn, if he were black, he wouldn't have even had the chance to murder those guys, the cops that drove by Rittenhouse and waved to him would have shot him on the spot. I guarantee someone will use this as a precedent soon. This is basically a license to kill.
Click to expand...
The cops even thanked him for being there and gave him bottles of water before sending the armed killer into the cordoned off section of town.

edit: I will also point out that those are objective facts and not an opinion.
 
A

Applesauceisgood

Well-Known Member
Herb & Suds said:
Like when a black man jogs thru a white neighborhood?
Click to expand...
I don't know the details of the case you're referencing. I do know it's possible for a white man to kill a black man without racism being a factor and vice versa. However, it's terrible to suggest someone who looks or acts guilty is objectively guilty. This is a common police tactic prior to your rights being violated. On the extreme end of the scale, people have outright confessed to crimes they didn't commit during interrogation. Confessing to a crime is very suspicious, yet they weren't guilty.
 
Herb & Suds

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
Applesauceisgood said:
I don't know the details of the case you're referencing. I do know it's possible for a white man to kill a black man without racism being a factor and vice versa. However, it's terrible to suggest someone who looks or acts guilty is objectively guilty. This is a common police tactic prior to your rights being violated. On the extreme end of the scale, people have outright confessed to crimes they didn't commit during interrogation.
Click to expand...
So on that basis
How could Kyle know the intent or history of his victims?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top