I'm sure that if Rittenhouse hadn't been there, three fewer people would have been shot, and two fewer sent to a morgue.
Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
I man I could. I'd need about $20 Quadrillion Dollars and access to the best research teams in the world and 20 years to break the dimensional barrier into a multiverse universe. The question you should be asking is could I easily prove it because you very much want one specific answer. To which I have to say nothing can be very truly proved because of the nature of reality and subjectivity of it.
Thus I can only say based on precedent and people from the protest mysteriously showing up and actually starting a fire in a dumpster than in all probability yes more buildings would have been burned.
That is a compelling piece of testimony in Rittenhouse’s favour.
Gordon. I am so glad to have you here for this. Having someone that's actually looking at the facts and being impartial is refreshing as a glass of water on a hot day.
Depends? He also said he was trying to surrender to Rittenhouse, and had his gun in the air.
And that doesn't mean the other two shootings were justified, let alone this third one 'cause Rittenhouse was still legally carrying a weapon and identifying himself as a trained security guard.
Why does this even matter, anyway? "Trained security guard" holds about as much authority as "trained short-order cook" when it comes to actually enforcing the law.
From what I've seen the trial has been tons of this but it's not being reported on as much by outlets.
Hell TYT have now apologised for misrepresenting events in their original coverage of the shooting.
Like FBI drone footage coming into play.
A witness for the prosecution testifying the first person Kyle shot had been threatening to try and kill Kyle and Co earlier in the night and said if he got any of them isolated he would try and kill them.
It's amazing watching how the stuff is being spun from what is said and major points to that clip I showed above the witness also claimed Kyle reloaded before shooting him. Guess what many outlets have run with? The claim Kyle reloaded to shoot again not the fact he admitted (and footage shows this) that he was only shot once he pulled his own gun and advanced on Kyle.
Because that was the excuse he used to get a gun. And because it shows his state of mind and intentions.
Its like dressing up as Batman and going out and beating the shit out of people, and then in your defense just saying "No, its alright, I was pretending to be Batman and that's what he does." It shows he had intentions to enforce the law, without the training or license.
And actually a security guard protecting a building does have some law enforcement capabilities. That's the whole point of private security. They can detain people, force them off property and in some circumstances discharge a weapon. All of which Rittenhouse claimed he could do and was given a weapon to do, despite, well...lying.
No he didn't have his gun pulled.
He tried to surrender, then backed off put his arms down and pulled his gun. That's known as a false surrender and in interviews after when he was getting out of hospital he said how he wanted to shoot Kyle then. AKA he surrendered, approach then thinking Kyle wouldn't see him as a threat tried to draw his gun and go for Kyle. Which that's a cowardly move from some-one who wanted to shoot Kyle and get to pretend he was a hero for doing so.
Also again for the 3rd time Kyle carrying the gun was legal and no the 3rd guy shot wouldn't know if Kyle was or wasn't acting as security and Kyle never in any footage says he is.
I'm guessing silent is trying to apply some standards relating to Trained security guard work to Kyle. In the UK for example if you're a security guard or a bouncer and coming off duty but your identification as a security guard is hidden you can get charged with assault if some-one attacks you and you then beat them to a pulp because it's deemed as them not having fair knowledge and warning about your capabilities. It's messed up but I've heard of it happening.
I’m not impartial; I think Rittenhouse is a fucking moron who had no business being where he was and doing what he was doing and were it up to me, the little twat would be in stir.
However, I am not a lawyer nor a judge. My opinion holds no weight in the eye of jurisprudence nor should it. I can recognise the testimony is compelling in Rittenhouse’ favour and still think he’s a fucking tool. But he’s getting his day in court and as the accused it’s up to the prosecution to prove his guilt. That’s how it works, regardless of my feelings on the event or the defendant himself.
The only security guards who beat people to a pulp are bad ones. And no shit beating someone like earns you a charge of assault; it’s a disproportionate application of force compared to the threat.
I mean that and under Wisconsin law its a misdemeanor to impersonate a state licensed security officer:
A person commits an offense if the person:
- Impersonates a commissioned or noncommissioned security officer with the intent to induce another to submit to the person's pretended authority or to rely on the person's pretended acts of a security officer; or
- Knowingly purports to exercise any function that requires licensing as a noncommissioned security officer or a security officer commission.
Last edited:
For those who want to see how things are being spun
This is how people are spinning the same witness I posted before. This was before he admitted than Kyle only shot him when he pulled his gun on Kyle.
Occupy democrats cut out that last but I posted and are trying to frame it as Kyle shot an unarmed man who surrenderd. Not as he actually admitted Kyle shot him only when he pulled his gun and advanced on Kyle after.
This is is mis-information and misrepresentation to a huge degree going on.
This is how people are spinning the same witness I posted before. This was before he admitted than Kyle only shot him when he pulled his gun on Kyle.
Occupy democrats cut out that last but I posted and are trying to frame it as Kyle shot an unarmed man who surrenderd. Not as he actually admitted Kyle shot him only when he pulled his gun and advanced on Kyle after.
This is is mis-information and misrepresentation to a huge degree going on.
This is a perfectly reasonable and logical way to view this, it is what I would have hoped most people here would have done when this first happened over a year ago. I also think Rittenhouse shouldn't have gone out there that night and that it was stupid to do so. But I believe that the correct thing to do is have him serve for whatever he is actually guilty of and all evidence and testimony has shown that in regards to the people he shot, that he did so in self defense.
You are selectively ignoring facts and arguments, because you are not even slightly impartial.
Firstly, as has already been pointed out, it is a massive fucking problem to go to intentionally go to place with a likelihood of conflict with a weapon. The very act of going there with a significant risk of needing to use a weapon puts people's lives at risk. It is our responsibility to not to cause the injury and death of other people, and where people engage in an activity likely to do so, it is at bare minimum negligent. This is why I think the claim of "self-defence" is morally (if not necessarily legally in that jurisdiction) unsound. Thus the matter of whether Rittenhouse was under sufficient threat to justify shooting mostly just makes the difference between more or less severe degrees of manslaughter.
As Gordon says, I think there's a reasonable chance that the defence will manage to spread enough doubt to get Rittenhouse off. But make no mistake, two men are dead and one disabled because an incompetent, negligent child wanted to play hero. It beggars belief that the best answer to this is to declare him innocent on all charges of violence - because honestly, I don't think a fine for illegal weapon discharge or whatever cuts it. At worst, his innocence is a moral hazard that facilitates armed militia making themselves self-appointed guardians of the peace, who can intimidate people into obedience because the law could view those who resist them to be shot in "self-defence". That is not the basis of a happy society.
Agema. We have video of almost everything that happened, testimony that favors the accused, knowledge of laws. Why are you so hung up on digging your heels in on this? If you were from the US then I might get it because then you'd be yet another person who's just doing this because "If this doesn't go the way I want it then the other tribe will have won" like a bunch of other people have been duped into acting here, but you're not, and so I'm confused. The facts were known a year ago to make this self-defense and all new facts turned over by the actual trial have all bolstered the defense. Just let it go already.
I was a security guard and went through the training. We were allowed to strike precisely three places: the solar plexus with a fist, and the inner and outer thigh with a shin kick. Everything else we were trained in revolved around retraining someone, usually in groups of two. Even then, competently delivered, a solid strike to either of those areas will take the fight out of most pissheads without permanent damage and allow one to remain square with the house.
The fact that he's 100% guaranteed to go free just makes me feel old. We'll do this song and dance and some other dude will actually shoot up a protest and everyone will go "how did it come to this??? This guy craaazy!" queue the camera pan to the free Kyle bumper sticker, *ironic wink* and we start all over again because there's definitely no pattern, no connection. Kyle Rittenhouse was just an average dude in the wrong place at the wrong time, it was all a misunderstanding folks, just like the next and the next after that.