Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Except possibly Kyle because an angry recently release mental patient with a history of violence decided he was angry at the militia for stopping him trying to burn things and so wanted to take it out on some-one and who better than a 17 year old kid?
Careful now you'll upset some people if you criticise Saint Floyd
Claimed yes , but he's have lost that claim because he was the one approaching Kyle who had previously been in retreat. Also he didn't have a valid concealed carry permit at the time so he'd have had a job proving that Kyle was threatening his life as to Kyle he appeared unarmed until that point so not a threat.
As far as I'm aware.
A) Curfew only applies to designated public spaces. Thus
B) The only argument for curfew violation would be Kyle moving from where he was residing (his friend or Step Dad's house one of the two) to the lot and if he went early enough he may have avoided curfew violation.
I dunno part of the main conflict started because Kyle apparently went over with a fire extinguisher to put out a dumpster Rosenbaum and others have lit on fire just on the edge of the lot.
Why attack Kyle?
Rosenbaum had a history of picking fight with people on little to no provocation, I know this isn't psychologically correct and has been shown to not be an actual thing but he was exhibiting what is sometimes called Napoleon syndrome where people who are shorter in stature act to prove themselves as tough by trying to start and win fights to prove they are some alpha male or something. Kyle being 17 and not looking like that much of a threat Rosenbaum likely wanted an easy win to make his ego feel better.
Technically Kyle is mixed race......
He claimed self defence because the guys friend sprayed mace at him after he started trying to attack them. The bullet hit the can of mace and ricocheted off into the chest of the guys friend. The attacker then fled the scene, gave an interview with Vice on about how he would refuse to turn himself in etc. Finally Police came for him knowing he was armed and this is where the story gets hazy as some witnesses report he fired on cops, other report he refused to comply with instructions and reached for something in his car, yet others claim the police just opened fire on him without warning.
The case was really simple and an easy acquittal. Just read the witnesses' testimony. The public didn't see the video evidence, but it would have to clearly contradict the witnesses' testimony to change the case. Rittenhouse's testimony didn't even matter at all. There was nothing the prosecutor could really do based on the facts, it really didn't matter that he made mistakes as it didn't change the case. All the witness testimony supported self-defense, it's not like the jury even had to decide witness credibility as no witness said Rittenhouse was the aggressor. Outside of the video that the public hasn't seen, all the facts of the case are out there to read yourself, just don't read/watch the media coverage.
The prosecutor should have taken a page out of the OJ trial. K.I.S.S., keep it simple stupid. Just go out there and focus on the fact that he was there with a gun without a good reason. "If the gun he brought, you must charge".
In America jail is purely punitive, not reformative. You can see this by the recidivism numbers. Our culture is that jail is punishment we inflict on bad people. Trying to paint it as anything else is naive. So that being the case, if you ACTUALLY want course-correction in the kid's life, I think scaring him shitless that he was a breath away from jail but didn't end up there is prolly much more effective than actually putting him in there.
(and we all know Matt Gaetz just wanted him to introduce him to some of his old HS classmates for some blind dating, you know, I bring the guns you bring the girls, that sort of deal)
My point is he wasn't gonna be sent to a Swedish jail if convicted, so your earlier point is only valid in some parallel universe. In the one we're at right now I think we got the best possible reformative outcome our system can produce.
Furthermore, people at large are cognizant of this, and I will grant you the respect of assuming you are aware of that, so you are kinda being deceptive if you purport to interpret their motives as ones seeking imprisonment to rehabilitate the kid and not to extract vengeance from him. We shouldn't pretend people want anything more than their pound of flesh when they make comments like the one you initially quoted. This is why they rejoice in his hypothetical social destruction.
Oddly the FBI had been monitoring him since October and I have a feeling there is more to this than is being told even by some media sources.
The apparent defence mounted to his claims was comedy not even trying 1A defence too like, that's a really shoddy defence plan there.
Nah wouldn't fly because open carry is legal in Kenosha. It would mean anyone carrying a gun could be attacked randomly and if they used it then could face murder / homicide charges thus making the idea of carrying guns as a warning not to start anything actually redundant
We get the facebook feed the algorithm says we deserve. Stop interacting with soccer moms.
Technically so is every 'white' person.
Last edited:
There were plenty of Jews in 1940s Germany that might disagree with you. But they are dead.
ITMT:
Thankfully, this didn't really happen...
Then the prosecutor should have been able to point to it - that (3)(c) can just be completely ignored as written and just means "or is currently hunting" would certainly have some convenient case law to point to. Or it doesn't, because there haven't been any 17 year olds with rifles or shotguns not meeting any of the conditions in (3)(c) successfully charged with that crime. Want to bet which it is?
I mean, that was certainly part of it, since Rosenbaum can be heard in one video talking about want to "jack them" and "steal they guns" - but I suspect that's not what you mean.
The song is slightly off about one thing - firing rate. Revolvers have existed since the 1500s and automatic weapons since the 1600s (Kalthoff and Cookson repeaters), they were just uncommon because they were very expensive (the Kalthoff mechanism was also kind of delicate, and the Cookson could misfire in such a way as to direct the explosion backwards), which made them relatively impractical. But this idea that the authors of the 2nd amendment couldn't possibly conceive of a time when you could shoot a gun more often than one every 3 minutes is ridiculous - Cookson repeaters in particular were being made in Boston around that time so it's not like they'd never have heard of them.
If that's all there was to it, then that's bullshit. That *IF* is kinda vital though.
Please do not insult other users -- permanent ban issued
The primary actual opposition to the Nazis was other people rioting against them. It was the militant wings of the SDP and KDP. The police were basically all supporters from day one. You know fuck all and are in absolutely no position to reference the events you are. Not to mention your Boomer-ass Facebook memes are both pathetic and key to the downfall of society. I genuinely don’t know how you’ve lived this long without accidentally swallowing your own tongue given the level of intelligence you regularly display.
Are we just pointing and laughing at crazies now?
Kyle is technically mixed race. The people he killed are white. what kind of CRT theory could possibly explain how bonkers the idea this was racially motivated is?
And you consider their tactics successful? You advocate for repeating that part of history?