I liked the part where the judge, AS PART OF THE TRIAL, thought CNN was too mean to Rittenhouse... and then didn't think about the news corps who pushed him to be there in the first place.
That sure makes him seem fair and balanced
Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
That sure makes him seem fair and balanced
Yeah, you're right. I misread the law and thought that the "unrestricted self defense" proviso was the actual self defense law, not just a section of it. My mistake, though that whole law seems weird to me (it seems like, if you hear someone screaming in a house and you feel they are being attacked, you can barge into that house and shoot them, but I don't read legalese well, as should be clear by now).
Not necessarily, at least in the example you provided. I'd imagine a lawyer worth his pay would be able to argue that your impaired judgement from being drunk could have been a contributing factor in having the knife drawn on you, or that said impairment meant that you took your defense too far (I'm assuming in this scenario that "defend yourself" means that the knife wielder is now dead).
My favorite bit was the "let's all stand and give a round of applause for our veterans" while the only veteran in the room happens to be a witness about to take the stand for the defense.
even if a bullet tumbles, it can still be lethal (albeit with far less kinetic energy than a direct shot).
anyway, that explanation sounds very... simplified to the point of being silly.
Speaking of the Onion:
Critics Question Why Kyle Rittenhouse Singled Out In Kyle Rittenhouse Trial
KENOSHA, WI—Arguing that the prosecution had demonstrated flagrant bias throughout the proceedings, critics questioned Thursday why Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger had repeatedly singled out Kyle Rittenhouse over the course of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. “Not a day has...
www.theonion.com
Last edited:
It's a private lot.
He was allowed to be there by the owner.
The order was people couldn't be out in public which would be defined as public spaces or locations not privately owned properties.
Done.
Note: There is precedent for this as some areas see Apple own part of what was public space round their buildings and are apply to not abide by the same rules and laws.
That would only work in regards to trying to have the knife attackers charge reduced from Assault to aggravated assault. It doesn't mean you can't defend yourself or that said attacker is justified to escalate things to physical violence if the attacker survived. Even under the idea of "reasonable and proportional force" if some-one is coming for you with a knife that's intent to kill so equal response is willingness to kill to prevent it.
You mean...let me check my notes here...
The open, unsecured, curtilage-lacking outdoors lot of a business without clear public/private boundaries, which the general public can access on and off business hours, on which there is not even reasonable expectation of privacy due to aforementioned openness and lack of curtilage? That one?
The one it turns out that no, in fact, Rittenhouse had not been invited to (something entered into evidence by testimony last week)? I mean, even had the shooting happened on that lot in the first place?
The one the cops dispersed Rittenhouse and the other gun-toting whackos from once and barred him from reentry?
And, let me check my notes again...
The later confrontation, which took place in the middle of a city street.
Those?
I mean, the "city street" part of it all rather speaks for itself. Other than that, even had the shooting occurred on the lot Rittenhouse claimed he was invited to (it didn't), the owner of that lot disputes that claim and testified Rittenhouse nor anyone else had been invited. Even then, Rittenhouse had been given a lawful order to disperse and not return to the lot he was never invited to by the cops, which he willfully disregarded. Even then, the shooting still occurred in a location that is the very definition of a public space, because ownership in the definition of a public space is less material than boundary demarcation and access.
You do get points simply for how spectacularly wrong you got every single facet of your argument, down to the minutest detail, though. The only thing sparing Rittenhouse from a criminal trespass charge and therefore nullifying his self-defense claim was...the car lot, by merit of being open to the public at all hours and lacking any form of curtilage, was a public space.
Last edited:
The lot has 2 owners. So maybe try asking the other owner because just because 1 said he didn't ok it the other may well have done. Also reports out there suggest Kyle and co were infact not dispersed by police by spoken with by them and praised with them even giving some of them bottles of water.
Also Public vs private in law can be very different to the idea of public vs private when walking about. Again Apple stores who own areas round their store.
So I'm guessing once Rittenhouse walks there'll be a bunch of proud boys waiting outside congratulating him with open arms, like it's that scene from Goodfellas.
...because the lot exterior is a public space, and therefore whether Rittenhouse had permission to be there is immaterial to the case except for establishing background and a timeline of events. The only way it would have been material to the case, is if Rittenhouse was facing a criminal trespass charge rather than a curfew violation charge. Otherwise, and likely regardless, had the evidence existed, defense almost certainly would have been able to produce call, text, email, or online interaction records to corroborate Nicholas Smith's questionable and contradictory testimony about having been invited to defend the lot -- particularly as Smith's story has changed several times over in the past year, and that he is a conflicted witness.
Another example of why this case pisses me off.
I hope that even the communists on our forums are able to recognize that none of this shit has anything to do with fascism.
I hope that even the communists on our forums are able to recognize that none of this shit has anything to do with fascism.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
Fascists are well known for their belief in due process of law.
Nine out of ten of the idiots who say shit like that are just parroting whatever neoliberal fashionable nonsense they heard the evening before on MSNBC, Breadtube, or social media. The tenth is the idiot saying that shit on MSNBC, Breadtube, or social media for cash and prizes. They're the types who gleefully ignore twelve of the fourteen "early warning signs of fascism" and obsess over the two about identity, while cheering on people who personify the twelve they've ignored.
And when that's pointed out to them, their first, last, and only word on the subject is to call their critics fascist in turn.
Well I mean, if it's THEIR law... yeah?
If he isn't found guilty of at least one shooting in addition to the weapons charge, there will be riots. This is true regardless of the evidence presented in the case, because to the people who will be rioting it's not about whether or not self defense applies in the events that transpired that night. It's not about whether or not by the law he should be punished.
Look at that list - 1 is the defense strategy, which they've done a fairly good job at demonstrating, 3 applies to literally everyone and 7 is the only thing that should matter.
A lot of this doesn't even make sense. Like if you're not looking at the facts to decide that this kid needs to go to jail what did you look at to come to that conclusion? Is that just pure tribalism and because your tribe decided anything done for BLM is alright no matter what that the facts cease to matter? And how is such a stance not fascist exactly?
Apparently 500 national guard are on standby for ater the verdict
www.nbcnews.com
500 Wisconsin National Guard on standby as Rittenhouse trial nears end
Closing arguments are expected Monday in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who fatally shot two people during protests in Kenosha last year.
Like...why aren't they fascists though? The right wing does the exact same, you just swap msnbc for fox news and breadtube for like...Ben Shapiro or something. And they get called fascists.