Kyle Rittenhouse trial

[Bagilson]

But we do have the right to promote our viewpoints and speak to the public heath risk posed by current US policy. Also Canada has its own NRA parrots pushing for the same lack of rules in Canada so it makes sense to argue our views on a Canadian discussion forum.

Absolutely. I wasn't saying that you couldn't state your opinion. I was saying that I fundamentally disagree with the philosophy underpinning it.

Further, given the general deterioration of our society, and the increasingly corrupt government-class, I think the 2nd amendment was a great idea and that we may be approaching an inflection point where the utility of an armed citizenry will be amply justified.

 

[benstt]

Your absolute lack of knowledge about firearms shows If you want to be taken seriously in this argument you might want to actually know a few things before commenting

dumb dumb bullets? Hello 1915 you mean jacketed hollow points

Militaries use a full metal jacket bullet it doesn’t expand and is not designed to fragment

The police use a jacketed hollow point it expands but it’s also safer to use because if you miss and the bullet hits a hard surface it fragments into small pieces significantly reducing the chance of ricochet and thus injuring or killing someone else

Hunters (rifles or pistols) use jacketed hollow points because they expand to humanely kill game

Handguns are used for hunting all over the world well banned in Canada it’s very popular in the United States

Handguns for target shooting usually use a full metal jacket bullet because they’re cheaper then hollow points

Ever notice how gun enthusiasts get bogged down in technical minutia? Every mass killing there will be somebody pointing out exactly which variation of the weapon was used.

That's you here. And missing the point

 

[Charlemagne]

Crybaby contact reported me!

 

[Charlemagne]

Not really. I think most of us critical thinkers see this "Asian food" joke as a silly attempt at humor not a racist slur.

Other than the most hypersensitive amongst us, most of us know the Judge wasn't blaming the supply chain issues at Pacific ports on Asian-Americans. Perhaps, EGADS!, he was making fun of Brandon.

Critical thinkers, yeah right....such projection.

There's a time and a place for everything. That's why righties suck so bad at comedy.

 

[Valcazar]

yup. Judge comes off as an ass

He does, but the prosecution also seems to be clown shoes.
The whole thing seems like a clusterfuck.

 

[Valcazar]

Apparently the prosecutors now want to try to get a conviction for blahblahblah because they know they aren't going to get their first degree homicide charge. The Judge apparently also thinks it's appropriate for the jury consider a conviction for blahblahblah.

What the fuck can I say? Dial it down on social media because you never know when your statements will be thrown back at you by fluid events and blahblahblah.

The judge in Kyle Rittenhouse's trial is considering lesser charges. Here's what that means

The judge in the homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse met with attorneys Friday morning for a conference on jury instructions, telling Rittenhouse that presenting lesser offenses to the jury lowers the possibility of a second trial but increases the risk of a conviction.

www.cnn.com

That article is pretty badly written. It doesn't clarify things much at all.
But it seems that the judge is allowing the lesser charges as an option in one case and not in the other.
So it seems a case-by-case situation that evolved based on what happened at trial.

 

[Czar]

Bottom line,

A good samaritan(putting out fires, tending to injuries) was attacked and he defended himself. Turned out by good fortune that the three attackers were all convicted criminals(pedophile, violent offenders) and there to riot(damage businesses.

From a legal point of view: self-defence.
From a societal point of view: many future criminal offences prevented.

Thanks Kyle. On a night when everyone is agitated, everyone of your detractors would choose to be stuck, unarmed in a room with you rather than the other three.

 

[The Oracle]

Bottom line,

A good samaritan(putting out fires, tending to injuries) was attacked and he defended himself. Turned out by good fortune that the three attackers were all convicted criminals(pedophile, violent offenders) and there to riot(damage businesses.

From a legal point of view: self-defence.
From a societal point of view: many future criminal offences prevented.

Thanks Kyle. Everyone of your detractors would choose to be stuck in a room with you rather than the other three.

LOl.......Oh man that made me laugh......But so accurate.

 

[Czar]

It's a domino chain. If KR has a valid self-defence for the Rosenbaum killing, then he argues that Grosskreutz and Huber couldn't arrest him and that the pattern appeared to be that others were targeting him for serious violence. The State argues that G and H had a reasonable belief that KR had shot Rosenbaum and were entitled to use force to arrest him.

It's difficult to believe that KR does not have the right to shoot someone who is pointing a Glock at him, espec as Dropkick Guy and Huber had just attacked him. There's also not a lot of evidence that DKG, H and G were actually going to arrest KR and not just beat and / or kill him.

GRAPHIC: Video allegedly shows 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shooting 3 people, 2 fatally in Kenosha - YouTube

Of course, one guy kicked him in the head as seen in this video and at 0:17 seconds, you can see what was planned for Kyle with the person dressed in black on the right side of the video was nearby and no doubt ready to act. Who knows, maybe all those guys wanted to make a gentle citizens arrest and drop him off at the police.

Kyle did what any one of you would have done if you had been there that night. Breaking the law(curfew violation and transporting a gun across state line instead of purchasing one in state) doesn't end your right to self-defense from the riot crowd who threatened to rip your heart out.

 

[Charlemagne]

 

[jcpro]

Bottom line,

A good samaritan(putting out fires, tending to injuries) was attacked and he defended himself. Turned out by good fortune that the three attackers were all convicted criminals(pedophile, violent offenders) and there to riot(damage businesses.

From a legal point of view: self-defence.
From a societal point of view: many future criminal offences prevented.

Thanks Kyle. On a night when everyone is agitated, everyone of your detractors would choose to be stuck, unarmed in a room with you rather than the other three.

A young man thought it his duty as a citizen to get involved. Where the hooligans were defacing properties with graffiti, he was seen cleaning them. When the criminals were burning and looting properties, he felt compelled to protect them. The man should be commended and cited as an example for others, yet he is in the courtroom fighting for his life. He is a patriot and a good MAN. What a schizophrenic reality we live in! One mistake he made, maybe it was the availability issue, a rifle is not the best weapon for a city street- bullets have the tendency to run through more than one body. I would have used a shotgun. That he hit nothing but his targets and under deadly pressure is a testament to his mastery of the weapon and coolness under stress.

 

[y2kmark]

Thankfully, my martini is drier than you my fellow TERB member.

Shaken, never stirred?

 

[y2kmark]

Interesting question, actually corrupt or just really bigoted...

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I'm glad I gave you a place to spew nonsense without even reading what you were responding to

Ah, so you dont even read posts. That would explain the reading comprehension issues

 

[richaceg]

A young man thought it his duty as a citizen to get involved. Where the hooligans were defacing properties with graffiti, he was seen cleaning them. When the criminals were burning and looting properties, he felt compelled to protect them. The man should be commended and cited as an example for others, yet he is in the courtroom fighting for his life. He is a patriot and a good MAN. What a schizophrenic reality we live in! One mistake he made, maybe it was the availability issue, a rifle is not the best weapon for a city street- bullets have the tendency to run through more than one body. I would have used a shotgun. That he hit nothing but his targets and under deadly pressure is a testament to his mastery of the weapon and coolness under stress.

if you look at the situation he was lucky to have brought an army on that encounter....a pistol would've ended differently for him.

 

[mandrill]

That article is pretty badly written. It doesn't clarify things much at all.
But it seems that the judge is allowing the lesser charges as an option in one case and not in the other.
So it seems a case-by-case situation that evolved based on what happened at trial.

It's all really, really, really standard in a criminal trial. If the evidence proves that KR was not guilty of the original murder charges, but guilty of behaviour that does not amount to murder, but which necessarily is included in the behaviour alleged to be murder and is itself a criminal offence, but is a less serious offence than that originally charged, then KR can be convicted of the "lesser and included offence".

This is part of ALL criminal trials. Nothing to see here.

The argument re "provocation" was whether there was enough evidence to put the "defence against the self defence defence" of provocation to the jury. I am guessing in WI, provocation reduces a self-defence acquittal to a manslaughter conviction. Or something like that. Really, really standard stuff.

 

[mandrill]

if you look at the situation he was lucky to have brought an army on that encounter....a pistol would've ended differently for him.

IDK, a pistol is far more handy in a close-in melee.

 

[jcpro]

if you look at the situation he was lucky to have brought an army on that encounter....a pistol would've ended differently for him.

Well, a pistol is not really a serious weapon and it's all about location, location, location of your hits. With a 1911 he would have achieved the same result although the deterrent value of a scary black, long and big weapon cannot be underestimated.

 

[mandrill]

Listened to the first 30 seconds and the judge is doing just fine. I'm not seeing ANY bias there. Those are standard criminal trial rulings.

The judge is getting old and some of his asides were a little "grandad's getting a little too old for this. He should be fishin'." But those were his jokes and forgetting to turn off his phone and answering it in court. The rulings are fine. He's still sharp enough to do those and not make mistakes.

 

[mandrill]

Well, a pistol is not really a serious weapon and it's all about location, location, location of your hits. With a 1911 he would have achieved the same result although the deterrent value of a scary black, long and big weapon cannot be underestimated.

Pretty easy to grab at though and clumsy to swing around. Although KR did okay on the night in question.