You wouldn't call them conservatives because you think conservatives are intrinsically correct on every issue.
I'll grant the "non-influential" part though.
Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
I'll grant the "non-influential" part though.
I mean, he's being coached by Tucker Carlson's media team. They know how to polish turds.
(He might actually be decent, but a heavily coached interview by somebody firmly in his court isn't a good place to judge that)
Legal eagle here to break it down, nice and dry, just the facts.
Lot to unpack here. I disagree with almost everything this guy says.
Example: he says Jump Kick man was unarmed. Incorrect. He kicked Kyle in the head with a shod foot. In the US, even a sneaker on your foot constitutes a deadly weapon. https://www.lexipol.com/resources/b...-shoe-fits-legal-definition-of-deadly-weapon/
I think Gaige Grosskreutz believed he was doing a good thing. I don't think that automatically makes it legal.
Kyle says on cell phone video that he is turning himself into police. He is on video. He isn't getting away with anything. Then why attack him?
I think the guys that killed Ahmaud Arbery really thought he was a bad guy and only shot him after he attacked them. I don't think that will matter: they're going to jail. We'll see.
I mean I should point out despite the title of the article being "deadly weapon" the ruling only lists them as a "dangerous weapon" and those are two very distinct legal weapons.
Assault with a deadly weapon allows to deadly force in self-defense.
Assault with a dangerous weapon, being objects that are not lethal in nature, doesn't inherently allow for deadly force self defense.
Seems to be a term of art where the two terms can be used interchangeably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_weapon#Other_deadly_weapons
" A deadly weapon, sometimes dangerous weapon or lethal weapon, is an item that can inflict mortal or great bodily harm. "
I am wondering, if the Legal Eagle is correct, even if the shooters of Ahmaud Arbery were wrong, they may get off for self defense because they thought they were right? I don't think so but I'm keeping an eye on this.
EDIT: Another things L.E. stated had me thinking he might have a point. Did Kyle instigate the shooting with Rosenbaum by pointing the rifle at him. I think he is referencing the moment before Kyle shot. If so, Rosenbaum is in full charge already. The pointing of the gun at that moment does not appear to be what motivated Rosenbaum. Maybe he was referencing something else in evidence?
Last edited:
No.
I wouldn't call them conservative because the things they're saying aren't conservative, they're either radical or a politically indifferent insane, and at least one of them was mocking that people called them conservative.
One of the most popular Breadtuber, probably close to Hasan Piker level notoriety.
"Breadtube" is a term used to describe left wing YouTube, especially content from the sorts who declare themselves to be communists. The more moderate Breadtube channels are things like ThoughtSlime and ContraPoints.
To be clear, this is a term they use to refer to themselves, not one foisted upon them by the far right as a snarl word or whatever.
"Just the facts" and a video of that greased weasel don't go well together.
A further analysis:
It was a racial justice protest and not a riot? Why did it attract so many violent felons? He notes it was, “chaotic”.
Both sides got lot of things legally wrong? On par with ignoring the Defendant’s right to remain silent, with holding evidence, tampering with evidence, ignoring judicial directives… ? In a 22 min. video, he will offer nothing. And I know of not a single thing.
He brings up the idea of a duty to retreat and then, even if KR did provoke the attacks, which I don’t think he did, he then shows videos of Kyle retreating.
@10:20, Rosenbaum is charging Rittenhouse, regardless of a pointed gun or not. Rosenbaum has plenty of “cool down time” even if “provoked” yet is only shot when he has charged and is almost right on top of Rittenhouse.
@13 min. he notes that the owners of Car Source did not ask for protection. I recall reading that Kyle asked them if he could help and they said yes. I suppose that isn’t “asking” for protection but in context, that statement is very misleading. At a minimum, that is in contention and should not have been reported by LE as fact: https://www.kenoshanews.com/did-car...cle_d0d31293-6736-53f4-9dcc-f448f37b2952.html
@14:25: you can look at the videos and think murder. Maybe. If you look at them and think, as suggested by the prosecutor, that once in a while you should accept getting a beating.
@18 min.: What if Rittenhouse were black? Just recently, a black kid went into a school and shot unarmed students and a teacher who were not attacking him. He faces less serious charges than Rittenhouse, got much lower bail, and did not do an extensive period of time in jail as Rittenhouse did.
@20: Kyle brought matches to a gasoline party? How would you prove that these people trying to burn the city to the ground would not have done even more damage but for Rittenhouse? LE seems to be reading right out of the, “just get on the cattle car when they tell you to do so” book of genocide.
@21:20: Duty to retreat. What does it look like Kyle is doing on all of that video? Rosenbaum is literally hauling ass charging him as Rittenhouse is trying to run away.
And again, at the start of the video, LE notes that the defense did a lot of things legally wrong. During this 22 min video, he offers zero examples.
It was the prosecution that did things as I note above. Those prosecutors may find their tickets being suspended.
Only good thing from LE's video is I'm going to watch a reaction stream of it from other lawyers when I get home. Can't watch it without that cause otherwise my blood will boil listening to him.
Well, yeah, duh. Anyone who thinks this case wasn't about race and politics is deluding themselves.