Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Agema]

A vigilante that doesn't provoke or fire their weapon until attacked isn't a vigilante.

A vigilante is basically just someone who takes law enforcement into their own hands rather than leave it to the police. It suggests passive exertion of assumed authority as much as active. Although I would draw a distinction between vigilantes and those people defending themselves and their own property. At any rate, an out of town militia heading into a riot to do what they think the police are not is vigilanteism plain and simple.

What personal motivation do you believe is behind my arguments?

That's more than I care to conclude on.

Maybe you have fantasies about blowing away hippies or felt warm and fuzzy because he looked cute and innocent. Maybe you picked his side ust because the people you normally oppose took against him. Maybe it was pretty much random, and then you just doubled down when challenged rather than reconsider or moderate. I don't know.

You are right wing, thus would be more inclined to side with Rittenhouse and/or against progressive protestors. But for instance when this first erupted, you were very quick on inadequate information to take Rittenhouse's side, and (if I remember rightly) quite happily jumped on weak rumours, such as those that portrayed his victims as criminal some of which were exaggerated or untrue. Credulity or eagerness to believe evidence friendly to one's existing belief is often a sign of bias. You have throughout had a tone to your pronouncements and insistence that implies an emotional investment beyond well beyond "the facts".

This sort of thing is enough for me to conclude that you are not as neutral as you think you are.

CM156 however comes across as pretty neutral - or at least, good at neutral tone. But then, he is a lawyer.

 

[SilentPony]

A vigilante is basically just someone who takes law enforcement into their own hands rather than leave it to the police. It suggests passive exertion of assumed authority as much as active. Although I would draw a distinction between vigilantes and those people defending themselves and their own property. At any rate, an out of town militia heading into a riot to do what they think the police are not is vigilanteism plain and simple.

I think Baron is opperating under the false assumption that a "vigilante" has to discharge a weapon in order to be considered one. And that's not true.
A vigilante is "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate."
And yeah showing up from out of town, claiming to be a trained security officer, taking up a gun and patrolling the streets acting as if in an official capacity IS the definition of a vigilante.

 

[Schadrach]

This is not legal advice, by the way. I have to repeat that like a mantra.

Honestly surprised you haven't just changed your profile title description to that.

having a gun illegally should be punished?

Sure, find him guilty of the misdemeanor firearm possession charge. I totally agree with that. That doesn't make him guilty of what they are charging him with for the shootings.

Vigilante murder = self defense.

So, what I'm hearing is if you're a protester and not right-wing (because I *know* you don't want this to apply to right wing protesters) then you should be good to go if you want to start looting and burning? And if you want to attack someone because you find their presence provocative (I don't know, maybe because they're trying to put out a fire you've set, or you'd like to steal their gun or something) then they lose the right to defend themselves because they wouldn't have been there if they didn't want you to attack them?

Its clear he wanted to shoot someone.

Then why didn't he just start shooting people? Why did he wait until someone attacked him and he tried to flee until that wasn't really an option anymore before shooting?

 

[Mister Mumbler]

He was an armed, dangerous, power hungry vigilante looking to murder people to prove he's a tough guy, and that's exactly what he did.

Ok, should point out that I feel this is a little extreme. While I feel that he did commit manslaughter (and the person who gave him the rifle is guilty of it as well), murder is a bit of a reach due to the whole "actual intent" needed behind it. I believe* he got caught up in delusions of grandeur and of being a stalwart protector against crime spurred on by a monster of an adult (how did he even get ahold of this kid, like, did he put out a Craigslist ad "Wanted: strapping young lads to provide armed security. Rifles provided on request"?).

*Note, this is the most charitable interpretation

 

[Specter Von Baren]

This! How are you not getting this Specter?! It doesn't count as self-defense if you arm yourself and go looking for a fight.
And given that he traveled over state lines, claimed to be a security officer, armed himself and started patrolling and issuing commands its pretty clear he was engaging in a power fantasy. Its clear he wanted to shoot someone. There's no other reason for an underage kid to travel to an area, pretend to be law enforcement, take up a gun and start hunting for protestors.

He wasn't called up, he's not in the reserve, he wasn't deputized, he's not licensed, and he doesn't even live in the state this took place in. He was an armed, dangerous, power hungry vigilante looking to murder people to prove he's a tough guy, and that's exactly what he did.

I've already gone over this. You need to show that he was looking for a fight through his words or actions. His words before the incident that day don't indicate a desire to fight and his actions as we've seen on video also show him not looking for a fight and trying to deescalate the situations he was in. And for the last damn time, enough of the irrelavant state lines crap. It was 20 minutes from his home, and he worked as a lifeguard there and it's where his dad lives, the people he shot had to drive further to get there but I don't see you thinking it's important for them.

Everything else is you once again inserting what you want to be true as apposed to what the evidence actually shows.

 

[Agema]

Ok, should point out that I feel this is a little extreme. While I feel that he did commit manslaughter (and the person who gave him the rifle is guilty of it as well), murder is a bit of a reach due to the whole "actual intent" needed behind it. I believe* he got caught up in delusions of grandeur and of being a stalwart protector against crime spurred on by a monster of an adult (how did he even get ahold of this kid, like, did he put out a Craigslist ad "Wanted: strapping young lads to provide armed security. Rifles provided on request"?).

I think there is very much a sort of attitude of wanting to be a hero, and particularly attractive perhaps to younger people and men, that can lead them to poor decisions.

I don't think that Rittenhouse comes across as a gung-ho "yee-haw!" bullet sprayer itching to fill some bad guys with lead - I am prepared to feel sorry for him (contingent on how much remorse he really has) as a kid who got completely out of his depth and did a terrible act that may haunt him for the rest of his life. I'm not even interested in seeing him receive a harsh sentence, I just think his severe misjudgement got people killed, and that should have consequences.

One of the things that would sadden me immensely is if he is found not guilty, and embarks on what amounts to a victory parade and embraces being a militia icon. If he is found not guilty and keeps his head down and does not play on his 15 minutes of fame, I would at least be satisfied that he learned something valuable.

 

[Buyetyen]

Everything else is you once again inserting what you want to be true as apposed to what the evidence actually shows.

Just thought I'd take this moment to remind everyone that every right wing accusation is also a confession.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I think there is very much a sort of attitude of wanting to be a hero, and particularly attractive perhaps to younger people and men, that can lead them to poor decisions.

I don't think that Rittenhouse comes across as a gung-ho "yee-haw!" bullet sprayer itching to fill some bad guys with lead - I am prepared to feel sorry for him (contingent on how much remorse he really has) as a kid who got completely out of his depth and did a terrible act that may haunt him for the rest of his life. I'm not even interested in seeing him receive a harsh sentence, I just think his severe misjudgement got people killed, and that should have consequences.

One of the things that would sadden me immensely is if he is found not guilty, and embarks on what amounts to a victory parade and embraces being a militia icon. If he is found not guilty and keeps his head down and does not play on his 15 minutes of fame, I would at least be satisfied that he learned something valuable.

He wears a shirt emblazoned with "Free as Fuck", so take that as you will.

 

[SilentPony]

I've already gone over this. You need to show that he was looking for a fight through his words or actions. His words before the incident that day don't indicate a desire to fight and his actions as we've seen on video also show him not looking for a fight and trying to deescalate the situations he was in. And for the last damn time, enough of the irrelavant state lines crap. It was 20 minutes from his home, and he worked as a lifeguard there and it's where his dad lives, the people he shot had to drive further to get there but I don't see you thinking it's important for them.

Everything else is you once again inserting what you want to be true as apposed to what the evidence actually shows.

What are you talking about?! His actions? You mean traveling across state lines, claiming to be law enforcement and taking up a gun? Those actions don't constitute looking for a fight?
And the reason I keep bringing up the state line fact is its a clear indication of his intent. He personally was not threatened in any way. He lived, as you point out, 20mins away from where the protest was taking place. There is no immediate threat to him or his property that required him to take up arms.
He traveled to a location 20mins away with the expressed intent of taking up a gun under the false guise of a security officer. That was his actions. That's what happened. All this nonsense about "Oh he couldn't retreat, he was being attacked!" is willfully trying to dismiss the fact he went to the protest with the intent of escalating the dangers there.
Again, it doesn't qualify as self-defense if you go looking for a fight. And traveling 20mins away from your home to illegally take up a weapon and impersonate armed security and attempt to enforce laws makes him both a vigilante, and someone actively looking for conflict. Unless through epic mental gymnastics you're implying him traveling to a protest, and him being present at a protest are somehow two completely unrelated events? That physics and causation don't apply to him? Traveling to a protest and illegally taking up a gun has nothing to do with being at the exact same protest with an illegally acquired gun? If that's your logic, shit, no one has ever committed a murder. Lee-Harvey Oswald pointing a gun at JFK and pulling the trigger was completely unrelated to a bullet hitting and killing JFK. Each individual action needs to be judged in a void and no one action ever leads to another.

Also I should point out just having a gun is considered an escalation of force. So he not only caused the incident by simply being there, he made it lethal by being an untrained minor illegally in the possession of a firearm.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

A vigilante is basically just someone who takes law enforcement into their own hands rather than leave it to the police. It suggests passive exertion of assumed authority as much as active. Although I would draw a distinction between vigilantes and those people defending themselves and their own property. At any rate, an out of town militia heading into a riot to do what they think the police are not is vigilanteism plain and simple.



That's more than I care to conclude on.

Maybe you have fantasies about blowing away hippies or felt warm and fuzzy because he looked cute and innocent. Maybe you picked his side ust because the people you normally oppose took against him. Maybe it was pretty much random, and then you just doubled down when challenged rather than reconsider or moderate. I don't know.

You are right wing, thus would be more inclined to side with Rittenhouse and/or against progressive protestors. But for instance when this first erupted, you were very quick on inadequate information to take Rittenhouse's side, and (if I remember rightly) quite happily jumped on weak rumours, such as those that portrayed his victims as criminal some of which were exaggerated or untrue. Credulity or eagerness to believe evidence friendly to one's existing belief is often a sign of bias. You have throughout had a tone to your pronouncements and insistence that implies an emotional investment beyond well beyond "the facts".

This sort of thing is enough for me to conclude that you are not as neutral as you think you are.

CM156 however comes across as pretty neutral - or at least, good at neutral tone. But then, he is a lawyer.

What a load of hogwash. One point, I'm not right wing, I'm the far more despicable centrist that both sides like to hate.

Now, Agema, have you watched any of the video recorded from that night? You know, the video we've had access to since the night this happened and have had access to for over a year? Want to know what my personal reason is for having the position I do? Because I trust my own eyes!

That's why I am so passionate about this, because I saw what happened because it was all recorded on video. It doesn't matter what mental gymnastics or word salad someone uses, it has not changed what can be clearly seen happening. And now on top of all that everything in this trial has supported that. There has not been some revelatory new evidence that contradicts what we saw on video over a year ago. Interesting thing is how none of you talk about the videos, if I want to assume the best in all of you, I assume it's because you've only ever read what scumbags have typed up and never did any actual investigation yourself. Instead of relying on journalists and politicians, look at everything with your own eyes.

 

[Buyetyen]

What a load of hogwash. One point, I'm not right wing, I'm the far more despicable centrist that both sides like to hate.

A centrist is a right winger with commitment issues. They take the side of the status quo more often than not and say that progress should be so incremental as to be effectively pointless. Trust me, you're not as smart as you think you are.

 

[Schadrach]

And the reason I keep bringing up the state line fact is its a clear indication of his intent. He personally was not threatened in any way. He lived, as you point out, 20mins away from where the protest was taking place. There is no immediate threat to him or his property that required him to take up arms.

So, anyone anywhere farther from home than their front yard loses all right to self defense? Or is there some radius that people are "allowed" to be from home before their life is forfeit if attacked? If the argument is some kind of "he had no right to be there" argument then, well, he went to private property with the owner's permission, and later was on public streets while fleeing his attackers/victims.

You literally have to fall back on "protesters were being violent, therefore being seen by them removes your right to self defense unless they are literally on your property." Which...I don't think is a thing you want...

Also I should point out just having a gun is considered an escalation of force.

In an open carry state, openly carrying a firearm in and of itself is not provocation or escalation. Hell, I occasionally see someone open carrying at the grocery store, and no one assumes the gun visible on the guy's hip means it's a robbery, or that he has no right to defend himself if attacked.

So he not only caused the incident by simply being there, he made it lethal by being an untrained minor illegally in the possession of a firearm.

I find it weird that the people explicitly there to burn and loot are somehow not responsible for the incident at all, but the guy they attacked, who tried to flee, only shot when he had to, and turned himself in to the police is definitely solely responsible. Because his being present and carrying a gun compelled them to attack him (specifically by someone who wanted to "jack them" and "steal they guns" aka Rosenbaum, which is a very legal and acceptable motive).

 

[SilentPony]

So, anyone anywhere farther from home than their front yard loses all right to self defense? Or is there some radius that people are "allowed" to be from home before their life is forfeit if attacked? If the argument is some kind of "he had no right to be there" argument then, well, he went to private property with the owner's permission, and later was on public streets while fleeing his attackers/victims.

You literally have to fall back on "protesters were being violent, therefore being seen by them removes your right to self defense unless they are literally on your property." Which...I don't think is a thing you want...

Leaving your home to seek out conflict by definition removes the right to self defense. You do not have the right to self defense if you're the aggressor. And illegally having a gun and claiming to be security and ordering people around in an aggressive action, and funnily enough, vigilantism. Pure and simple. If he hadn't left his home, he wouldn't have murdered people.

In an open carry state, openly carrying a firearm in and of itself is not provocation or escalation. Hell, I occasionally see someone open carrying at the grocery store, and no one assumes the gun visible on the guy's hip means it's a robbery, or that he has no right to defend himself if attacked.

Again, its not open-carry if you're a minor who is not hunting or target practicing, and even then they need a parent or guardian. Open carry does not apply here.

I find it weird that the people explicitly there to burn and loot are somehow not responsible for the incident at all, but the guy they attacked, who tried to flee, only shot when he had to, and turned himself in to the police is definitely solely responsible. Because his being present and carrying a gun compelled them to attack him (specifically by someone who wanted to "jack them" and "steal they guns" aka Rosenbaum, which is a very legal and acceptable motive).

Not how it works. If he hadn't been there illegally being a vigilante, no one would have had to attempt to disarm him. Rittenhouse is the aggressor here, and disagreeing with that is simply not how facts work. Conducting criminal acts, being stopped, then attempting to flee the scene of the crime and murdering people does not qualify as self-defense no matter what.

Also since some people still don't get it, it doesn't matter what the protestors were doing, because Rittenhouse is not law enforcement, and was an illegally armed minor. He had no business being there, full stop. But he traveled there expressly to illegally impersonate law enforcement, and in so doing became a vigilante. And him being there, illegally armed, was an escalation of force that lead to the murder of two protestors. And again, doesn't matter what they were doing because Rittenhouse isn't allowed to enforce laws and was illegally armed. His very presence there was a crime that caused the altercation.

 

[SilentPony]

Also just so everyone is aware, this:

https://i.redd.it/0lsst8ku2fy71.jpg

It not the prosecutor face-palming because of how damaging testimony was to his case. This is the position he has made multiple times during the trial while reading and taking notes. It is not an indication of the DA thinking the case has fallen apart. Claiming its some big "gotcha" moment is just more the same from the usual suspects. Deliberate misinterpretation of events to push a narrative.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Seems a bit of a mad system, that.

Well it was working fine until some level of impunity started happening to certain people who were working to intimidate juries into voting certain way.....

Okay, let's take an analogy. On a construction site, a site foreman accidentally drops a brick and it strikes a worker on the skull and kills him. Had the deceased worker been wearing a hard hat, he would have survived. It turns out that he was not wearing a hard hat because the site foreman had not enforced rules on proper safety gear. By your logic, the foreman is blameless and this is just an accident. But that's really not the case, is it? The precise details of how a brick was dropped are not the problem, the problem is that workers were not required to wear hard hats. This negligence created a situation where serious injury or death was made much more likely, and should have reasonably been foreseen. It would not be controversial to charge the site foreman for his negligence.

This aspect has been pointed out to you dozens of times. The only way you have responded to it is deliberate myopia to pretend it doesn't exist.

The reason Kyle was there shouldn't matter.
The lot was private property.
He was allowed to be on the lot.
It was connected to public property.
There is no law saying Kyle can't be out in public.
Kenosha allows open carry so what Kyle did was allowed.

It's funny because the 3rd person Kyle shot actually WAS illegal in possession of a firearm because turns out convicted felons aren't allowed to own firearms normally lol. So by that logic the 3rd guy show was in the wrong for illegally carrying a gun. Even if you want to ignore the fact he went to point it at Kyle and tried to advance on him.

Yes, but the law isn't there to make up shit just to keep right-wing nutjobs happy, is it? And the minute it does, you may as well hand right-wing nutjobs the keys to the Capitol and the White House and let their militias replace the police and courts.

Nor is it there to stop left wing nutjobs trying to murder jurors and or others linked to the trail for not giving them what they wanted which was heads on spikes because Kyle dared oppose their righteous attempts to cleanse the lot with fire and killed of two of the "Brave warriors of light" who never did anything wrong and certainly were also both convicted felons or anything........

A foreman has a responsibility for his workers, Rittenhouse did not have any such responsibility for the actions of Rossenbaum that night and all the video evidence and eye-witness testimony shows Rossenbaum to be the agitator. Maybe the issue is that you're from Britain and the laws work differently over there, maybe you should read up on how the American legal system works?

Thing is laws don't work that differently in the UK. Yes there's a "reasonable force" qualifier but most cases of a person killing another in self defence when it's clear self defence have seen the person doing it walk free of all charges. I think even the guy who shot robbers with a shotgun as they were turning to run in the UK got off in the end.

Okay, stop right there, because you don't truly care how the US legal system works any more than most people here. You're not in here arguing from the pristine neutrality of a disinterested party assessing the mechanics US jurisprudence, you want Rittenhouse to be found innocent for your own personal motivations.

I'm very clear about the fact that as far as I'm concerned, if Rittenhouse is not guilty, it is merely a deficiency of the legal process in that state that is not affording its citizens adequate protection.

In some states if he'd punched Rittenhouse, then he could have pulled a gun on the spot and shot him under stand your ground laws. So purity of the law here is kinda comedic when in this case Kyle is on video doing more than a number of other states require to claim self defence. He did retreat and tried to de-escalate but was pursued.

 

[Agema]

Now, Agema, have you watched any of the video recorded from that night? You know, the video we've had access to since the night this happened and have had access to for over a year? Want to know what my personal reason is for having the position I do? Because I trust my own eyes!

And I care relatively little about the fine details of what transpired that night, for the reasons supplied multiple times, including by other people in this thread other than me.

 

[Piscian]

Also just so everyone is aware, this:

https://i.redd.it/0lsst8ku2fy71.jpg

It not the prosecutor face-palming because of how damaging testimony was to his case. This is the position he has made multiple times during the trial while reading and taking notes. It is not an indication of the DA thinking the case has fallen apart. Claiming its some big "gotcha" moment is just more the same from the usual suspects. Deliberate misinterpretation of events to push a narrative.

Apparently the testimony was mixed bag and is being misconstrued as damning for clickbait news. He pulled a gun on Kyle because he thought Kyle was an active shooter, he initially tried to surrender, but tension were hot and so the exchange was confused and Kyle shot him.

I've been thinking about that florida trial where the guy accosted a couple, was pushed to the ground and he shot the guy who pushed him and claimed self-defense. He was ultimately convicted because the guy was shown on camera backing away when he saw the guy on the ground had a gun. I think it'll pretty much go down the same way. Will the jury decide Kyle's life was in danger when he fired. Sadly it has nothing to do with right and wrong or ethics. It's just going to be was shooting all those people his only option. I don't see him going down for the mental patient, its a tough call with the guys who tried to apprehend him.

I think it's horseshit and we have shit laws allowing pieces of shit like him to start fights and then somehow put it on other people not to scare him into shooting them. Its a strange irony that if they had shot him or brain him that skateboard they probably would have equal defense because this country is insane. Its practically to the point where I can walk around the streets waving a gun and screaming and if anyone tries to stop me Im okay to shoot them as long as I pee my pants when I do it.

 

[Agema]

I think it's horseshit and we have shit laws allowing pieces of shit like him to start fights and then somehow put it on other people not to scare him into shooting them. Its a strange irony that if they had shot him or brain him that skateboard they probably would have equal defense because this country is insane. Its practically to the point where I can walk around the streets waving a gun and screaming and if anyone tries to stop me Im okay to shoot them as long as I pee my pants when I do it.

Indeed, one might point out that the minute Rittenhouse shot the first guy, there is an argument that the people with a right to self-defence could have been the people attacking Rittenhouse.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You're also a shitty liar. Just saying.

Oh I see Waldoof has found his Statler again

Someone should make a list of the worst examples of spin they are seeing in the media coverage of this, and matching clips from the trial footage to make it clear what was actually said. I feel like that would be immensely useful in the coming days.

I'm tempted to but it's not like people bother listening to me anyway, at least not those who will fall for or push said false claims and spin anyway.

Here's another one though



and the spin

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-11-04/witnesses-1st-victim-threatened-rittenhouse-lunged-for-gun

Man killed by Rittenhouse was ‘babbling idiot’ but not a threat, witness says

A man who was killed by Kyle Rittenhouse during social unrest in Kenosha, Wis., last year was a “babbling idiot,” but posed no threat, a witness at Rittenhouse’s murder trial testified on Fri…

thehill.com

This is the subtext of this entire case. Whether or not right-wing militias are now official police officers, and you better believe if this kid gets off the number of deaths from emboldened militias will increase.
This is not just a murder trial, its a referendum on this whole "scared white guy shoots first, and he's white so that's okay" mentality that's been growing these past few years.

No the subtext of this whole case is a left wing mob getting their feathers all in a fluster because they've been given massive leeway to get away with whatever they want to an extent for a while and suddenly faced opposition to it so want the opposition punished for daring to not let them burn stuff down and act like they have the mentality of children lashing out and breaking and burning stuff because "we're angry".

If Kyle had been black I'd be saying it were ok. If Kyle were Mexican, Chinese or any other ethnicity I'd have been saying his actions were self defence. Hell the people literally yelling at Kyle were celebrating the Chaz "Security forces" shooting some "White supremacists" who "Tried to attack the main building in Chaz". It was people with guns acting as private unregistered security who shot dead two black teens who happened to steam a truck and go on a slightly out of control joyride not actually targeting anyone but hey the Chaz "security" were "On the right side of history" so gunning down two 15 year olds who hadn't actually tried to attacked people was seen as fine by said people because they thought they were white supremacists. You want to talk about scared white guy shoots first? That's your scared white guys shoot first.

Kyle as footage shows tried to retreat first.

This! How are you not getting this Specter?! It doesn't count as self-defense if you arm yourself and go looking for a fight.
And given that he traveled over state lines, claimed to be a security officer, armed himself and started patrolling and issuing commands its pretty clear he was engaging in a power fantasy. Its clear he wanted to shoot someone. There's no other reason for an underage kid to travel to an area, pretend to be law enforcement, take up a gun and start hunting for protestors.

He wasn't called up, he's not in the reserve, he wasn't deputized, he's not licensed, and he doesn't even live in the state this took place in. He was an armed, dangerous, power hungry vigilante looking to murder people to prove he's a tough guy, and that's exactly what he did.

5th fucking time

Kyle turned up with his medical kit, he initially refused the rifle. He didn't turn up there planning to shoot people as evidence by the fact he turned up with his medical kit and in interviews before the shootings even talks about wanting to help people and get in there to provide medical help if he can. He worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard so the only travelling was from where he worked to the lot he was on. He didn't pretend to be law enforcement (videos even show this).

 

[SilentPony]

Indeed, one might point out that the minute Rittenhouse shot the first guy, there is an argument that the people with a right to self-defence could have been the people attacking Rittenhouse.

I mean at that points there's not even an argument. Once Rittenhouse murdered the first protestor, he was an active shooter. Any force is justified to take down an active shooter.